Barack Obama has been busy apologizing again. Korans/Qurans which were no longer Korans/Qurans because they had been “desecrated” and indisputably become terrorist communications devices instead, had to be burned (not buried as usually required for not desecrated, legitimate, Korans/Qurans).

Obama immediately apologized and trials are promised for the not yet chosen American/NATO victim(s) who thought he/she was duly performing the appropriate procedure for dealing with terrorist communications. Americans are getting killed for disposing of terrorist communications and it is Barack Obama who apologizes. Obama’s butt ugly “face” gets uglier by the second because those “young Muslims” he was supposed to seduce have not fallen in love with their thin suitor.

A real American president would not bow to the corrupt. A real American president would have made the case that the burned Korans/Qurans were terrorist communications devices which desecrated the holy book for adherents of Islam. But no, Barack Obama apologized for front line troops doing their job. A personal apology to the president of Afghanistan. Barack Obama has declared for all departments and all spokespersons of the government that apologies which comfort America’s enemies are the order of the day.

Compare and contrast – a presidential performance par excellence:

Pity China and Russia. They have no fear or respect for Barack the Boob. But Russia and China have in Hillary Clinton a person of substance and an adversary to respect and fear.

When Barack Obama weaseled his way into the Rezko House White House Hillary Clinton faced a dilemma. Hillary Clinton knew Obama was treacherous and she should not join the cabinet, but Hillary worried about abandoning America to the inexperienced treacherous boob at a time of peril.

Hillary Clinton succumbed to her “responsibility gene” and opted to represent America, try to save the world, and keep the State Department and American foreign policy as safe from Obama’s henchmen and women (think Samantha Powers, Tom Donolin, the anti-Israel crowd around “Arabs’ Lawyer” Barack Obama, Denis McDonough, and Susan Rice). as much as she possibly could.

“Speaking after a Friends of Syria conference, held in Tunisia, Mrs Clinton said that Russia and China must join international condemnation of President Assad’s regime.

“It’s quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto while people are being murdered – women, children, brave young men – houses are being destroyed,” she said.

“It is just despicable and I ask whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian people.”

They are not on the “side of the Syrian people” just as surely as Barack Obama is not on the side of American troops in Afghanistan.

Whatever one thinks about American policy in Afghanistan and Syria is not the issue. The issue is that an American president should forcefully represent American policy and interests and not apologize reflexively. In Tunis, Tunisia Hillary Clinton forcefully enunciated American policy and fearlessly condemned powerful Russia and China.

Safe in the golf courses of Washington D.C. Barack Obama whimpered with new apologies which afflict America’s friends and comfort America’s enemies.

“One of the Common Obama Myths is the “He Ran a Great Campaign” meme. The truth is he always sucked.

How is this possible? He won, didn’t he? He must of done something right.

Obama had a huge money advantage with millions of dollars in donations coming from Wall Street and other 1%ers. He was the media darling. He had the secret support of the Democrat establishment. Despite all of that he nearly lost in both the primary and the general elections. [snip]

The media refused to investigate Obama’s background. When negative information came out anyway the media tried to ignore it. Meanwhile they kept insisting that Obama was the inevitable nominee and that Hillary had no chance of winning. [snip]

The Obama we see today in the Oval Office is the same Obama we saw on the campaign trail four years ago. Those of us that were not wearing Koolaid goggles could see back then he is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

On Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer took strong umbrage with the White House’s decision to apologize at a Virginia mosque for a reportedly accidental burning of Islamic holy documents.

“That was embarrassing, what we saw,” Krauthammer said. “We have gone from apology here to abject self-debasement and groveling. And groveling to whom? To the mob. We should have had a single apology coming from the commander on the ground and that’s it. Not from the secretary of defense. Not from the president, of all people.”

Krauthammer reminded viewers of the 2010 incident involving Terry Jones, a Florida pastor who was promoting “Burn a Koran Day” and the administration’s reaction to that.

“Remember when the president had to pick up the phone when there was a crazy pastor in Florida who wanted a Koran burning and he had to be talked out of it,” Krauthammer said. “Is the president in charge of the offenses against a certain religious tradition in the world? This is a world in which nobody asked the Islamic conference, the grouping of the 56 Islamic countries, to issue an apology when Christians are attacked and churches are burned in Egypt or in Pakistan. And have we heard a word from any Islamic leader anywhere about the radical Muslims in Nigeria who are not only burning the churches but are burning women and children who are Christian in the churches. When I hear that, I’ll expect my president to start issuing apologies.”

According to The Washington Post columnist, this response makes the United States look weak and despite looking weak, those on the other side rarely reciprocate.

“In fact I’m not sure the argument that … you have to do it to protect our soldiers, is correct,” he continued. “The fact that after the president apologized and after we have been on our knees groveling there was an increase in the violence. I mean, it isn’t as if it has any effect whatsoever. It whets the appetite. People love to see America on its knees. And second, on the idea that there are leaders, Muslim leaders in the world who apologize, there are 56 nations in the Islamic conference. Has one apologized for the attacks on the Copts in Egypt? Has the leader in Egypt himself apologized? No. Sorry.”

Krauthammer’s “Special Report” co-panelist Kirsten Powers shot back at him, suggesting that the United States should set the example.

Repost from last thread:
ShortTermer
February 25th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Re: Mrs. Smith
February 25th, 2012 at 3:55 pm

It was not the Independents that stayed home last election; it was the conservative Republicans and conservatives period. McCain, just like Romney now, can not and will not get the conservative vote….they will stay home….they will not compromise their principles. Each of them believes that if they go contrary to their individual principles that all is lost. They CAN not go contrary to their principles. Thus, the unelectability of Romney. Personally, I only see one difference between what is in the White House now and Romney….he is Dimocrat Lite. Not acceptable. It was the thievery, thuggery, cheating, and the conservatives staying home that got us what we got now.

Harping on personal events in the past of a candidate would make it very hard to vote for any candidate. I overlook Big Dawg’s flaws just as I overlook any flaws that Gingrich has had in his past. If you want to examine personal flaws we would have had far fewer people who were influential for this country like: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Benjamin Franklin, etc. Gingrich has sought, and I presume received, forgiveness for his past sins; who are we to judge? What is needed to be considered now is WHO can get the job done? Who has the plans to get the jobs done. I have read Gingrich’s but I do not see that Romney has any bold plan or series of plans to do anything other than a speech where he cites he has the business acumen. I can just see him in a board room of hardened criminals, er politicians, that know all the ins and outs of forcing and coercing compliance with their way or the highway; Romney would go home crying like a baby to his mama. The only experience he has had is dealing with businesses that are inexperienced in guerilla warfare or Alinsky tactics, or the strategy of wars.

Back home story that correlates to the book burnings: A man, a veteran, placed a large wooden cross on his property. He was given a hard time about removing it; he battled the removal and kept the cross. The man passed away a couple of years ago. Thieves came onto what is now his family’s property and chained the cross and dragged it on down the road and piled it into a ditch. The man’s children love that cross and consider it a memento of the man’s life and his faith. One of the grandchildren placed flowers at the foot of the cross last week in honor of the man.

There is no outrage about this. The police have not involved themselves in the theft. The media has not covered any of it. Yet laws were broken and a faith was disrespected. Where is the outrage in America involving symbols of faith? I am sure this cross was as valuable a symbol of that man and family’s faith as the book that is the center of the controversy overseas that our ApologizerInChief values so much.

I do not see the big deal about the Quaran. It is a symbol of faith, yes. But man prints it, man can print another and it would be just as valuable as a symbol of faith. Our poor soldiers deserve a little respect and backing from their Commander In Chief…..where is that?

Harping on personal events in the past of a candidate would make it very hard to vote for any candidate. I overlook Big Dawg’s flaws just as I overlook any flaws that Gingrich has had in his past. [....] Gingrich has sought, and I presume received, forgiveness for his past sins; who are we to judge?

=========================

We are voters who judge whose policies and judgment are best for the office. Impeaching Bill and harassing Hillary was not a “personal event” or a religious ‘sin’ to be ‘forgiven’. It showed what he wants and what he still wants: to destroy the politics that Bill and HIllary stand for.

If Obama claimed to convert to Catholicism and claimed he had been ‘forgiven’ — would you ‘forgive’ what he did to Hillary and vote for him? (Much less what he is doing to the country with Obamacare etc.)

OBAMAS ASSAULT ON THE CONSTITUTON AND BILL OF RIGHTS
I. Introduction:
Shortly after Mr. Obama took office, his then Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel uttered these prophetic words: “never let a good crisis go to waste”. At that time, the majority of the electorate was too weary of Bush, too worried about the financial crisis, and too susceptible to mainstream media induced magic thinking to consider the possibility that as bad as things were, Messiah Obama would make them worse.
Three years have passed since he stood before us and proclaimed a new heaven and a new earth. And, what we do we see now? In fairness, we did avoid a depression. But in all other respects the outlook is bleak. We are still in a recession; more people than ever are unemployed; our national debt has skyrocketed; businesses are not hiring because of his anti-business attitudes, oppressive regulations, predatory tax policies and Obama care; our leadership role in the world is vastly diminished.
Finally, and most important of all from a strategic standpoint, Mr. Obama has laid siege to our Constitutional system of ordered liberty because it stands in the path of his Progressive Agenda. (Note: this agenda is the great unmentionable hiding behind the mantra of hope and change; it is what differentiates Obama from the traditional liberal who respects the Constitution; and it is something mainstream media studiously avoids because they know this issue has the potential to destroy him.)
Let me be perfectly clear: this paper is not for everyone. For example, it is not for those who are so afflicted by tribalism, guilt and magic thinking that they cannot see past the issue of race; nor those who favor a culture of dependency; or are easily seduced by the bread and circuses; or see themselves as “Citizens of the World” rather than Americans; or have a cozy pay-to-play arrangement with Obama; or have abdicated their journalistic integrity for rosier lights; or are willing to stand by and let the country fail so long as their little world is not affected; or have an axe to grind with this country; or are content to simply follow the herd. In sum, this paper is not for those who blindly support Obama.
Rather, this paper is for rest of us, meaning those who believe that this country is exceptional; that the Constitutional order is worth defending; that it is unseemly for an American President to bow, scrape and beg foreign dictators to forgive us for being who we are; that Obama is indeed different from other presidents, not because of his race, but because of his agenda, which is anti-American to the core; that the establishment of both political parties and mainstream media have betrayed us and are no longer credible; and it is for those who feel like Cassandra in Greek mythology because they can foresee the devastation that 4 more years of Mr. Obama would entail, but cannot get others to wake up to reality. Sadly, we are an endangered species. Why? Because the operatives behind Mr. Obama are pros. They use mass manipulation, police state tactics and a wall of money to intimidate and destroy anyone who stands in his path. Make no mistake about that.
The American People will be called upon to make a fateful decision in November. At this point, polls indicate we are deeply divided. Roughly half of the electorate approves of Mr. Obama, and he outpolls the current crop of Republican candidates by more than the margin of error. We tell ourselves will change after the Republican nominee is chosen, and the party unites behind him. Perhaps it will. But if we maintain a narrow focus it may not because mainstream media will parrot the talking points of the Obama campaign ‘til hell won’t have it anymore. And on that fine point, we have this smoking gun from a former Obama insider: http://newsflavor.com/opinions/white-house-insider-the-media-elected-obama-not-the-american-people/. At the same time, his 527’s will bombard his opponent.
Since elections are about the future, we need to consider the broader issue at stake in the November. That issue has nothing to do with whether Bush caused the recession or Obama made it worse or the Republican candidate would with flying banners and beating drums march us backward into the glorious age of the sixteenth century to paraphrase Clarence Darrow, or the self-proclaimed creative class at the New York Times. Rather, that issue involves patriotism, and patriotism transcends crass politics for most people.
That issue in question is the Progressive Agenda. That agenda is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitutional Order upon which this nation was founded. The American People can have one or the other but not both. And that is the ultimate choice the American People will face in 2012—either wittingly or unwittingly.
Therefore, it is imperative for the American People to understand i) what the progressive agenda is, ii) how it is being subtlety implemented and iii) how Mr. Obama is undermining the Constitution in order to achieve it.
Mainstream media refuses to present the issue to the American People in those terms. Furthermore, the Republican Party has failed to make the case effectively. Therefore, the burden defaults to individuals like me. We may not have the resources of a major media organization behind us, but we are free to say what we believe to be true.
I have been an attorney for nearly forty years. I campaigned for Hillary Clinton in four states (Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia)—all of which we won. I believed she had an agenda that would save the middle class, and I knew from his prior record as a State Senator and later a U.S. Senator that Mr. Obama would destroy it. At other times, I have served in the kitchen cabinet of Republican candidates whom I believed represented the middle class. Therefore, the goal of this paper is simple and straightforward: to red flag the progressive agenda of Mr. Obama, so voters are not bamboozled by his billion dollar scorched earth campaign into repeating the mistake of ’08.

‘It was not the Independents that stayed home last election; it was the conservative Republicans and conservatives period. McCain, just like Romney now, can not and will not get the conservative vote….they will stay home”

I almost hate to point this out it’s so obvious but that’s how we ended up with BO in 2008 so that tactic didn’t exactly work out too well.

I am an ABO person.

Period.

At this point I think that’s the only possible choice. And for voters to keep tearing down the (so-far) only possible contenders for Bo’s job doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why keep bashing the few left when no one knows who will end up with the nomination except, of course, for the POS who on Univision said he still has 5 years to put his policies in place.

I do not have a crystal ball but I do know another BO term would be a catastrophe so I am for everyone lining up behind whoever the nominee is.

Personally, I don’t feel strongly about any of them to the extent that I would lobby for or campaign for any individual now. Whoever gets the nom gets my vote.

That is what is required between now and the November election…patriotism. It is promoting the single most effective nominee even if that nominee has warts and bleeding ulcers that splatter all over his mouth if he possesses the skill sets to bring America back from the brink.

I am puzzled. I do not confess to know about all religions, but is there a religion that will not allow forgiveness of ANY sin once a person repents? And if the Good Lord above forgives, who are we to judge? But should we set ourselves as judge, should we not judge all sins from everyone equally? Even our hero was a philanderer and did not represent himself well under oath….something that I can not phantom our girl doing. And yet, I love Big Dawg still and do sincerely believe that he has learned from the err of his ways. Since Hillary forgives, I will follow her lead on the Big Dawg.
Therefore, I must confer the same level of acceptance and forgiveness to Gingrich. Anyone who has become a grandparent knows that your life and worldview change at the moment of birth and even more so as you age; he has stated he wants to leave America a better place for his grandchildren. I believe him and that is my goal as well. He loves our country and has the skill set to reverse much of what evil has been done to this country.

This latest disgrace by the POS reminds me so much of one of the first real post-inauguration glimpses we got that PROVED we here at PINK were 150% correct in doubting the fothermucker.

Remember the Henry Gates incident, when he was SO quick to bash the Boston cops and immediately rushed to judge the situation from his narrow BLT perspective and pronounced the cops guilty of racism?

Without ANY D@MN proof – just the word of a “brother.”

Same thing with taking the word of a “brother” muslim over other possible interpretations of the Afghan incident and blaming the American military and DARING to apologize as the (unfortunate) voice of America to those friggin’ barbarians.

II. The New Progressive Agenda
The Progressive Movement of the late 19th century was a legitimate reaction to the excesses of the Gilded Age. It was driven by the needs of the working class and vehemently opposed big business. It produced the eight hours work day, social security, the American Middle Class and the highest standard of living in the world for the American People.
The New Progressive Movement is an entirely different animal. It is driven by the needs of global business, caters to lifestyle priorities of the privileged class and cares not for working people. If it succeeds then it will produce a have-and-have-not society.
(Note: I realize there are young people in this movement who believe Mr. Obama is God. They are what Lenin referred to as “useful idiots”. Chris Hedges, an honest man of the Left explains what Obama really is:
Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090503_buying_brand_obama/)
George Soros is the architect of the New Progressive Movement. He is a global capitalist, hedge fund manager, and founder of The Open Society Institute through which has engineered left wing revolutions in the Eastern Europe. In addition, Mr. Soros is the de facto head of the Democrat Party, and the Godfather of Mr. Obama.
In 2009, I wrote a paper which appeared on several websites proving each of those points. During the course I my research, I discovered the following statement by Mr. Soros: “the Democratic Party does not stand for the principles that I advocate; if it did it could not be elected.”
For those who wonder why Mr. Obama has broken so many campaign promises, there is your answer. The only way he can be elected and still pursue the Progressive Agenda is by saying one thing and then doing the opposite. This also explains why the American People are conflicted about Mr. Obama. They confuse words with deeds, theater with reality, and a populist façade with a radical agenda.
The populist façade of Mr. Obama was accurately described by Steve McCann in a recent article in The American Thinker:
“In his teleprompter speeches and carefully choreographed events, Mr. Obama casts himself as the people’s avenger against those he defines as the enemy be it the wealthy, the corporations, Wall Street, deeply committed religious groups, conservatives, Republicans, the Tea Party movement or anyone else who stands in the way of his nation-saving agenda. There are no lies or obfuscations too egregious to tell or societal tensions too dangerous to create, as he alone can save the nation.” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/barack_obama_in_the_footsteps_of_twentieth_century_despots.html .
Behind that populist façade, Mr. Obama is doggedly pursuing a radical progressive agenda—which is fundamentally at odds with the Constitutional order. This can be seen clearly in the three (3) major policy initiatives which have defined his presidency. First, his failed attempt to achieve a climate change treaty; second, his successful effort to enact Obama care; and third, his lethal attempt to enact gun control measures through Operation Fast and Furious, and UN treaties.
N.B. If you analyze these objectives jointly and severally, you will discover that they have three (3) objectives in common: i) first, to expand the role of government in our daily lives, ii) second, to curtail individual freedom and liberty accordingly, and iii) third, to spread the wealth of the middle class to others both here and abroad.
A. Climate Treaty: the architect of this treaty is Maurice Strong (alias Chairman Mo). He is a Canadian oil billionaire who the media describes as a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli. Strong is an associate of George Soros and he sits on the Chicago Climate Exchange Board, which makes a market in cap and trade. Also, Soros and Strong have a financial interest in the low cost energy efficient cars which are being produced today in China. Finally, Strong was the Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations (Earth II) Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. And on that occasion Chairman Mo gave us this pearl of post industrial wisdom:
“Economic growth is not the cure—it is the disease. . . . Industrialized countries have developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” http://yedda.com/questions/New_World_Order_According_Maurice_5183161118675/
Chairman Mo insists that this is this treaty is the only alternative to the fiery death of our planet. However, as you might suspect, there is more to the story. It seems that many global warming advocates see Kyoto and other treaties as instruments of power politics. . . Indeed, EU Environment Commissioner Margaret Wallstroem says this: Kyoto is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, this is about trying to create a level playing field for big business throughout the world. . . And French President Jacques Chirac has termed the Kyoto Protocol ‘the first component of authentic world government.” http://www.allamericanblogger.com/6198/obamas-new-climate-czar-beloved-by-socialists/
Finally, Lord Moncton, who was the science advisor to former Prime Minister Thatcher, understood the hidden agenda of Mr. Obama to a fare thee well, and issued this dire warning to the American People:
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
“You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/ .
(Note: being a Brit, Lord Moncton can be forgiven for not knowing that under our Constitution, a treaty of this nature would still require Senate ratification by a 2/3 margin. Obama knew that however and that is why he solicited a legal opinion on whether he could circumvent that Constitutional requirement. He was told that the climate change give-away program could pass as domestic legislation by a simple majority, but in that case, it could be revoked by a subsequent Congress. The legal point became academic however when the Climate Conference collapsed based on a showing that the scientific evidence of global warming had been manipulated by treaty proponents. However, when it comes to Czars and executive orders Mr. Obama is under no such constraint)
B. Obama care: “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010”—has a very impressive title. However, when a law thus described reduces coverage and limits options it hard to see how that can be called “patient protection”. Likewise, when such a law causes premium costs to rise and increases the federal debt it is hard to know how it provides “affordable care”. The only way that is possible is if the English language has lost all meaning. With mainstream media it already has. They called ObamaCare “the most important civil rights victory since 1964”.
One of the bill’s chief supporters John Dingell (D-Mi) was asked about the morality of waiting until 2014 for some of the bill’s provisions to take effect. The response he gave was at best idiosyncratic. He said it takes time to pass the legislation necessary to “control the people”.

At first blush, I assumed that all he meant was the goal of the law was to rationalize our health care system to the needs of the American People. But if you read that statement in the context of the law he was referring to, then it becomes obvious what Dingell meant when he said control the people. He meant that the individual mandate embedded in the law would remove all limits on federal power over the individual. In other words, the intent is to take away liberty.
When 26 State Attorneys General filed suit against Obama Care, this mega-political concern was drawn into high relief. It has clearly enunciated in the dissenting opinion at the US Court of Appeals:
The individual mandate (in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, i.e. Obama Care, which forces American citizens to purchase insurance against their will) is a novel exercise of the Commerce Clause power. If it is held to be constitutional then it is difficult to see any limits on what Congress can legislate. Indeed, what aspect of human activity would escape federal power? Only through a Constitutional Amendment could a structural shift of that magnitude be accomplished legitimately. —James Graham, Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. (Emphasis Added)
The case is now before the Supreme Court. It will be heard this spring and a decision will issue prior to the election in November. As Steve McCann points out in the American Thinker:
The passage of ObamaCare has nothing to do with healthcare; rather, it is a vehicle to ultimately control the day to day activities of the American People through dictates and mandates emanating from an overarching bureaucracy. Once fully implemented, individual liberty and freedom, the hallmarks of the nation’s history, will be eradicated forever. Furthermore, the Obama regime has shown a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, as no Administration in this nation’s past has so aggressively promoted abortion and birth control, and through the rationing mechanism in Obama care, the real prospect of government sponsored euthanasia. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/barack_obama_in_the_footsteps_of_twentieth_century_despots.html .
C. Fast and Furious: during the Nixon presidency, the Washington Post had a source who told them what was going on inside the White House. His code name was “Deep Throat. And he played a played a pivotal role in the Watergate investigation. Today, the American People have a similar source inside the Obama White House. His code name is “Insider”. Initially, he supported Obama, but over the course of time he came to regret that decision, believes the Obama will destroy the country, and is now working sub rosa to defeat him in 2012. Hence, every week he gives anonymous interviews at a site called Ulsterman, wherein he recounts the machinations, power struggles and chaos that consume the Obama White House. The information he has provided has proven to be credible, accurate and highly predictive.
In the November 7, 2011 edition of Ulsterman, Insider turned his attention to the Fast and Furious Scandal currently pending before Senate and House Investigative Committees. That scandal has mega-political ramification, to wit: i) first, it involves an abuse of executive power similar to what we saw in Watergate, ii) second, it implicates the senior level of the Obama Justice Department and has already led to resignations, and iii) third, it reveals a larger agenda to radically transform this nation contrary to the interests of this country. It is critically important for the American People to understand the gravity of all this. Therefore, I have taken Insider’s comments and converted them into a opening statement which a prosecutor might deliver in a courtroom to persuade a hypothetical jury.
———————————————————–
Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
Today, in this court room, you will hear evidence about an operation called Fast and Furious. You will learn how senior officials of the Obama Justice Department knew about it, authorized it and what its actual purpose was. You will also learn how it caused the death of hundreds of innocent people. Once you have heard that evidence, and weighed its merits, I will ask you to enter a judgment of guilty against each of these defendants. To that end, I will prove the following:
First, I will prove to you that shortly after Barack Hussein Obama took over the Office of President of the United States, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which reports through the chain of command to Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, launched an operation known as “Fast and Furious”.
Second, I will prove to you that over the strenuous objection of ATF field agents, and with prior knowledge and approval of the Obama Justice Department, the ATF forced American gun dealers to sell over 1000 automatic firearms and explosives to known criminals representing the Mexican drug cartels. To date, those firearms have been used by those cartels to murder 200 Mexican citizens–and Border Agent Brian Terry.
Third, I will prove to you that Fast and Furious was made to look like a prior program for tracing guns into Mexico which was conducted by the Bush Administration. But the truth is the two programs had diametrically opposed objectives. The Bush program had a legitimate law enforcement objective, i.e. to identify conduits and end users of deadly weapons. The Obama program however did not.
Fourth, I will prove to you that even after Border Agent Terry and 200 Mexican Citizens were murdered with guns that the Obama Administration forced gun dealers to sell to drug dealers, the Obama Administration failed to trace them. Instead they stonewalled. And now Attorney General Holder freely admits that those same guns will probably be used to kill more Americans in the future based on who has them.
Fifth, I will prove to you that the purpose of the Obama program was not to prevent crime but to facilitate it. For the real objective of Fast and Furious was political in nature, i.e. to generate violence in Mexico and along our southern border in order to create the political impetus for sweeping gun control measures within the United States, and to break the political gridlock in Washington over the proposal to reward an illegal act by granting amnesty and citizenship to 20 million illegal aliens.
Sixth, I will prove to you that Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder knew about this operation, and their denials are neither consistent or credible. Mr. Obama has assured us that he is” working on gun control under the radar:, and that warrants a strong inference that he knew. Mr. Holder has been evasive on the matter and has steadfastly refused to be responsive to legitimate requests by the Committee for information. Finally, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer wrote a letter to Congress denying that he knew the ATF walked guns into Mexico prior to a date certain, but as the investigation closed in on him, he changed his story and admitted that he knew about this 10 months earlier. However, he claimed he never informed Holder or Obama. He calls it a mistake. This explanation rings hollow. It is hearkens back to Admiral Poindexter’s statement in the Iran-Contra Investigation about firewalls and “plausible deniability”.http://www.rollcall.com/news/pressure_builds_on_lanny_breuer_in_fast_and_furious_fallout-210858-1.html (Note: it now appears that Breuer will fall on his sword and resign in order to protect Obama and Holder. If Boehner accepts that offer and quits the investigation, then he should step down as Speaker.)

Seventh, I will prove to you that when Obama took office, George Soros identified four (4) priorities he ordered him to pursue. They were i) Obama care (which takes over 1/6 of the US economy), ii) Immigration Reform (which diminishes national borders as sources of friction for the free movement of goods and services throughout the new union), iii) Gun Control (to disarm the population–as in Europe), and iv)Green Energy (in which Soros was heavily invested). Obama pursued these objectives–long before he turned his attention to jobs—the issue that was critical to the American economy and the American People. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-speech-congress-bad-news-polls-.html That alone should tell you for whom Obama is working.
D. Conclusion: if you analyze the record of the past four years, the goal of Mr. Obama becomes obvious: i) “to redistribute the wealth of the middle class” (Obama’s statement to Joe the Plummer); ii) “to control the American People” (Obama care sponsor Representative John Dingell (D-Mi); iii) to establish a bevy of Platonic Guardians who are beyond the power of the vote to regulate all aspects of our lives from cradle to grave (the Czars); iv) to compel the individual to engage in economic activity where he would not otherwise do so (the individual mandate); v) to coerce churches and religious individuals in their sacred beliefs; vi) to exploit the demographic fault lines in order to maintain power (age, race, gender, citizenship, economic class, etc.); vii) to raise taxes on the wealthy and later on the middle class, viii) to tax and regulate small business to the point of extinction, ix) to pursue state capitalism rather than private enterprise x) to cede our sovereignty to international institutions. The end game is to eliminate the freedom and liberty which have been the imprimatur of this nation, in order to control the world.

Question: is this the kind of country we want for ourselves and our children? Is it???

Agreed BUT everyone has not yet come to the same conclusion about who that might be and until the dust has settled and the outcome is more clear it doesn’t help for anyone to trash the four candidates still in the primary race.

Let me rephrase that. It does help – BO! And he and the dims are licking their chops over the outstanding job being done by his opposition to kneecap any and all of his potential opponents.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), in town for the National Governors Association conference, will skip a White House dinner Sunday honoring the nation’s governors, telling staff she does not want to participate in a “social” event.

The dinner, an annual event hosted by President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, is one of the conference’s highlights. Brewer’s decision comes a month after she dramatically confronted the president at a Phoenix area airport over his response to her portrayal of him in her book.

“I’m not,” Brewer told The Huffington Post when asked whether she would attend the dinner.

The Huffington Post overheard Brewer telling gubernatorial staffers prior to Saturday’s opening NGA session that she would skip the dinner because it was a “social” function, but that she would attend Monday’s White House meeting between governors and Obama because it was a “policy” event.

Unfortunately, by using the term ‘Progressive’ (even as ‘New Progressive’) in this negative sense, you are setting your credibility against Hillary’s, who called herseif a ‘modern Progressive.’ Using it negatively tars her with the same brush.

(Recently I posted a quote from a transcript of Hillary labeling herself ‘modern Progressive’, and iirc there was a link to a video also.)

I do not confess to know about all religions, but is there a religion that will not allow forgiveness of ANY sin once a person repents?

=====================

You are confusing religious forgiveness with political endorsement.

But to go along with you for a moment — you said “once a person repents.” Gingrich has NOT repented for what he did to Bill and Hillary. He has not even apologized for impeaching bill. He has not said that Bill was right in his policies during the 90s (unlses you count trying to take credit for them!). Gingrich is still preaching the same kind of politics he did in the 90s.

Turndown–I think of Hillary as a Roosevelt liberal–or if you prefer a traditional progressive. I think Soros owns the term new progressive. I think I have defined it properly. The new progressive is like the old marxist.

III. The Destruction of the Constitution
Mr. Obama is not a liberal. Liberals respect the Constitution, as do conservatives. Mr. Obama however does not. Why? Simple. The Constitution stands in the path of his progressive agenda, as described above. Therefore, he is doing exactly what you would expect him to do, i.e. attacking the Constitution on all fronts, as I will show.
In addition, he is appointing fellow progressives as Judges. In case you have not noticed, we have three of them on the Court now. One of them stated recently that she prefers the South African Constitution to the American Constitution which if memory serves she took an oath to uphold. Another, who had no prior judicial experience, refuses to recuse herself from the Obama care case, even though as Solicitor General, she participated in emails discussing the “legal issues, arguments and strategy concerning “the anticipated Obama care litigation”. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/26/evidence-mounts-against-justice-kagan-for-recusal-in-obamacare-suit/ At a minimum, that raises a strong appearance of impropriety, and Chief Justice Roberts’ defense of her decision does not change the verdict. It merely reflects a desire to defend the institution.
If Mr. Obama is given a second term, then he will undoubtedly appoint more progressive justices to the Supreme Court and they will be in control. Furthermore, he will appoint more progressives to the Courts of Appeal and District Courts across this land. As this happens, as night follows day, progressive lawyers will bring cases in front of these courts which will enable these progressive judges to re-write the Constitution in accordance with progressive dogma. The dark side of this transition from decision-making by original intent to decision making by political philosophy was explored in the movie Judgment at Nuremberg, through character of Nazi Supreme Court Justice Ernst Janning who was portrayed by the late actor Burt Lancaster. It stands as a dire warning.
That said, let us consider the line of attack that Obama and his fellow progressives have launched against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As we do so, let us not forget how those documents have protected us for over two centuries, and what it would mean to lose them.
A. Freedom of Speech: (First Amendment):
When Howard Dean ran for President, he hired a cadre of internet savvy progressives from the Green Movement to advance his campaign. When he withdrew from the race he transferred that group to Senatorial candidate Barack Hussein Obama. They helped him win the election.
Thereafter, those progressive bloggers set up websites like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, etc. They used them to attack the Bush Administration over the Iraq War. And when the 2008 Democratic Primary began they used them to attack Hillary and promote Obama. And they banned Obama critics from their sites. Their mantra was tomorrow belongs to me.

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

These progressive bloggers also infiltrated pro-Hillary and Republican sites. They repeated the pro-Obama talking points with mind numbing regularity, and attacked conservative bloggers with foul language and threats. Their goal was to drive people off those sites and ultimately to shut them down. And when those efforts proved ineffective, they engaged in e-terror. They discovered the identity of anti-Obama bloggers, left death threats on their answering machines, rummaged through their computer files, and harassed their contacts list. This had a chilling effect on free speech.
Finally, Mr. Obama played the race card from the bottom of the deck. In South Carolina, he and his crony Jim Clyburn fabricated racist charges against Hillary and Bill Clinton. Later the false charge of racism was adopted by the DNC under Howard Dean, and by his successor Tim Kaine. And Chris Van Hollen of the DCCC used the false charge of racism on his way to losing the House of Representatives. Today it is standard operating procedure for Democrats is to impute racist motives to any objective criticism of Mr. Obama. Sieg heil!
A constitutional system favors free speech. It holds that the people are sovereign and their collective judgment is what counts. Therefore, the goal is an informed electorate. A progressive system fears free speech. It holds that the state is sovereign, the leader is smarter and nobler than the people, and his judgment is what counts. The goal of a progressive system is an indoctrinated electorate. Dissent is verboten. Mr. Obama and fellow travelers come from that side of the fence. They use internet to censor diverse opinion. They use the false charge of racism to silence opponents. Their actions are inimical to free speech. They violate the spirit of the First Amendment. But the only remedy is at the ballot box.
B. Freedom of the Press: (First Amendment):
When Mr. Obama took office, the news organizations that had supported him during the primary fell immediately in line with his presidency. They struck a Faustian Pact with him which involved access in exchange for favorable coverage. Thereafter, the Obama White House sent them an average 12 emails a day commenting on their coverage and giving them the talking points for publication not editing. Those submissive organizations were, and are: NBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, WashPo and AP.
The organizations that did not support him during the primary continued to function as journalists and Mr. Obama used his newly acquired powers as president to destroy them for this. The most conspicuous target was FOX. Initially, he tried to excommunicate them from the Washington Press Corps pool. Thereafter, he used White House personnel to monitor their coverage 24-7, and declared they were not a new organization.
The Obama White House coordinated their attacks on FOX with Soros funded Media Matters. That organization proceeded to attack FOX, to pressure their corporate sponsors, and to blacklist their journalists The following email by the Director of Media Matters provides rare insight into the progressive mind, and its totalitarian tendencies:
The progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around anymore. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole. We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers. We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff.”
In addition, the Obama campaign actively conspired with young Ezra Kline and a long list of left wing journalists to kill stories critical of Obama. http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
Obama’s attack on the free press has been relentless, and highly effective. The best evidence of its efficacy is how he has reduced the White House Press Corps to a chorus of castrades. Indeed, Richard Benedetto, a long time member of that club, and now professor of journalism has called his former colleagues on their fall from grace.
Over the past five months, the Republican presidential candidates participated in 13 debates where they fielded dozens of penetrating questions on every major issue facing the nation, and some not so major. Yet, during all that time the man they hope to defeat next November (Obama) has rarely been asked by news reporters about many of those issues. No questions on immigration, no questions on Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea—global trouble spots the GOP candidates have been queried about repeatedly. Moreover he was not asked about what spending cuts he would make to reduce the deficit, nothing about Medicare and Social Security reform or his health care law, all familiar questions for the Republicans seeking his job.
Obama’s ability to avoid tough questions, skate above the fray and look presidential while his potential successors appear to be futilely flailing is not by accident. It is by White House design, aided by a press corps that seems content with being shut out by the president and being spoon-fed the message of the day, rather than clamoring for more chances to ask him questions during this critical time. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/30/media_abet_obamas_aloofness_on_tough_issues_112576.html
Finally, the Obama White House has created an Enemies List which is comprised of journalists and organizations who do not tow the party line. This is a dangerous precedent and it cannot be reconciled with the concept of a free society. It is totalitarian, or if you prefer, progressive.
C. Freedom of Assembly: (First Amendment):
In 2009, Mr. Obama forced his health care bill through Congress. The public reaction to it was overwhelmingly negative and it remains so to this day according to Gallup. After passing this legislation on party lines, Obama sent Congressional Democrats into their respective districts on to present the White House talking points on the subject. And he turned to SEIU President Andy Stern a political supporter to provide protection. Whereupon, Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff (who is now working on the 2012 campaign) met with a group of SEIU “volunteers” and told them if they got hit by the Tea Parties, to “hit back twice as hard”. Whereupon, these SEIU went to a Town Hall Meeting in St Louis and physically attacked a black conservative who was selling Tea Party flags on the sidewalk, and not bothering anyone. He was taken to the hospital, arrests were made and charges were filed. This violent incident, and others like it, had a chilling effect on freedom of assembly. Lastly, the persistent efforts by the Obama Administration and CNN to label the Tea Party movement racist with no supporting evidence has a similar effect.
D. Freedom of Religion: (First Amendment):
The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion and/or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Mr. Obama is using the power of the State to support the Muslim Religion both here and abroad. Those efforts raise an inference that he is attempting to promote a particular religion in violation of the establishment clause. However, at this point, the risk is too remote to be a Constitutional violation. (Note: if this were the Christian religion and it was a Republican, then the American Civil Liberties, a Bolshevik organization, would be in Court.)
On the other hand, the recent actions of his Health and Human Services Secretary mandating that Catholic institutions provide free access to contraceptives for female workers would appear to constitute a per se violation of the free exercise clause because it forces those institutions to violate deeply held religious beliefs. In so doing, Mr. Obama seeks to reduce religious liberty from a fundamental right to a mere privilege which can be granted or withdrawn at will by government.
Obama supporters would strongly dispute that characterization. They would say that Mr. Obama is a deeply religious man. But the religion he practiced for twenty years was that of the Trinity Church in Chicago. The spiritual leader of that Church is the Right Reverend Jeremiah Wright—a proponent of black liberation theology, which can be summed up in these words which thunder down from the pulpit: god damn Jews, white people and America. As President, he lives those words every day.
E. The Right to Vote:
Voter fraud and intimidation are part of the Obama campaign strategy, which is based in Chicago. It carries over into the governing process as well. I witnessed this in my own campaign travels.
For example, in the state of Washington, his operatives registered phantom voters—and were belated prosecuted and convicted for it. In Iowa, they sent busloads of young people in from Illinois to overwhelm the system, register same day and vote illegally. In Texas, his operatives engaged in 2000 reported acts of voter fraud and intimidation which were reported to the DNC who swept them under the rug. In Laredo, where I was, his operatives engaged in violence. And in Indiana, his operatives in Gary counted non-existent voters, and similar violations were reported in Fort Wayne and South Bend. This hearkens back to a comment attributed to the greatest progressive of them all, Uncle Joe Stalin: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” The following report by a Democrat Party election monitor in El Paso will give you a better idea of what I am talking about. http://mydd.com/users/pacific-john/posts/texas-caucus-fraud-updated
Two years later, a writer and producer named Gigi Gastone, set out to prove that the Obama campaign was innocent as the driven snow, and ended up proving that in fact they and the DNC were dirty as hell. She produced a documentary to that effect entitled We Will Not Be Silenced. Here is part of the trailer:
This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned actions of what we feel are Obama campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is of course all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced”. http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/11/we-will-not-be-silenced-democrats-produce-documentary-alleging-rampant-vote-fraud-by-obama-campaign-vs-hillary-in-2008-primaries/
After Obama took office, he sanctioned these voter intimidation tactics on the grounds of race. On Election Day 2008, armed men wearing uniforms and jack boots of the New Black Panther Party were posted in Philadelphia at the entrance of a polling station. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters. After the election, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department brought a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and these armed thugs. Justice Department lawyers obtained an entry of default after the defendants failed to appear. Before a final judgment could be entered however a change of Administration took place and the Obama Administration ordered a dismissal of those claims. When pressed, their position was the Voting Rights Act was intended to protect black people, hence white people whose voting rights were violated by black people could not take advantage of it. More hope and change. http://pjmedia.com/blog/j-christian-adams-you-deserve-to-know-%E2%80%94-unequal-law-enforcement-reigns-at-obamas-doj-pjm-exclusive/
It is unclear why the Obama Administration would fail to uphold the law in this instance. Some have suggested that Mr. Obama needs the New Black Panther Party, along with ACORN to support his GOTV efforts in 2012. Others believe it is yet another example of the race card he has been playing ever since South Carolina. Reasonable minds can differ.

Tell Brewer not to worry. Our erstwhile senator will be there participating as our newly elected governor, Governor Chafee. Chafee is the son of the late former Secretary of the Navy, Sen John H. Chafee.

Old money there. Will certainly take precedent over boorish business dealings- those put off for a later time when influence will be the mark one or the other will be in need of-

I suppose Chafee will respond with his checkbook after hearing Super-Pac whispered several times in his ear while in attendance. Obama will nod and grin his way when Chafee catches on-

Chafee actions as governor have been much of a surprise and disappointment to most residents. His squandering of political capital implies lack of common sense and good judgment risking his popularity as a one term governor taking a side where the public good has no dog in his fight. Is the commonality between Obama and Chafee where their egos mutually meet.

Chafee advancing the idea putting a 10% state tax on restaurants, carwashes and heating oil. And if thats not bad enough; fighting the death sentence imposed on a convicted killer last Spring caught on tape, in broad daylight in front of a bank (a half mile away from my home) murdering a gas station manager making a deposit of the days receipts, stealing his (cash) deposit bag putting a bullet in him because he ID’d him as a customer.

Chafee is championing the killer as unworthy of capital punishment because of the State’s policy… ( the heck with justice for the fatherless- husbandless victims of a premeditated, cold-blooded murderer.)

wbboei said:
Turndown–I think she said that to voice solidarity with the left wing of the party. But I see her and Bill as centrists.

====================

The referent of ‘centrist’ moves with the Overton window. It doesn’t matter why she calls herself a ‘modern Progressive.’ If she chooses to use that word, it belongs to her, and it’s up to her supporters to support her use of it, not to label her in a negative way.

Turndown–I think she said that to voice solidarity with the left wing of the party. But I see her and Bill as centrists.
_______

That is exactly right- Hillary recanted the labeling of Progressive when Progressives identified themselves as the Far Left or Radical Left… The video referred to was during one of the Primary debates when the question was asked as a ‘loaded’ question asking Hillary if she is a Progressive…and she made a noticeable pause saying she is a ‘modern’ progressive, which means she is comfortable in the center of the Left and the Right… as is known as a Centerist. The CENTER is where her policies took root when her campaign ended in June of 08′

Playing Lose and Fast with accusations that it was Gingrich (all by) himself who Impeached Clinton is a bridge too far stretching the Truth.. It’s about time you be held accountable for your consistently erroneous postings here blaming Gingrich for Clinton’s Impeachment and the fact you have assimilated this erroneous information to include; he’s never apologized to the Clintons. Gingrich paid dearly for the opening of this Pandora’s Box- read on for the explanation from WIKI cauterizing that twisted mind of yours fraught with systematic errors you relish propagating.. like one hand continuously clapping in the dark!
__________________

THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT:

“Shortly after the mid-term elections, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, who was one of the people leading the impeachment proceedings against Clinton,[12] announced he would resign from Congress as soon as he was able to find somebody to fill his vacant seat;[11] Gingrich fulfilled this pledge and officially resigned from Congress on January 25, 1999.

During the impeachment process, Gingrich’s private polls suggested that Clinton’s scandal would result in the GOP gaining six to thirty seats in the US House of Representatives in the 1998 midterm election.[11]

Impeachment proceeding were initiated during the post-election, “lame duck” session of the outgoing 105th United States Congress. The committee hearings were perfunctory, but the floor debate in the whole House was spirited on both sides. The Speaker-designate, Representative Bob Livingston, chosen by the Republican Party Conference to replace outgoing Speaker Newt Gingrich, announced the end of his candidacy for Speaker and his resignation from Congress from the floor of the house after his own marital infidelity came to light.[13] In the same speech, Livingston also encouraged Clinton to resign. Clinton chose to remain in office and urged Livingston to reconsider his resignation.[14] Many other prominent Republican members of Congress (including Dan Burton[13] of Indiana, Helen Chenoweth[13] of Idaho, and Henry Hyde[13] of Illinois, the chief House manager of Clinton’s trial in the Senate) had infidelities exposed around this time, as publisher Larry Flynt offered a reward for such information and many supporters of Clinton accused Republicans of hypocrisy.[13]”

“Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote)[15] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).[16] Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[17] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).[18] Four Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for three of them and one Democrat for all four. Clinton thus became the first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868 (articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon were passed by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, but Nixon resigned the Presidency before a vote by the full House).”

“Five Democrats (Virgil Goode of Virginia, Ralph Hall of Texas, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania, Charles Stenholm of Texas, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge. Five Republicans (Amo Houghton of New York, Peter King of New York, Connie Morella of Maryland, Chris Shays of Connecticut, and Mark Souder of Indiana) voted against the first perjury charge. Eight more Republicans (Sherwood Boehlert of New York, Michael Castle of Delaware, Phil English of Pennsylvania, Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, Jay Kim of California, Jim Leach of Iowa, John McHugh of New York, and Ralph Regula of Ohio), but not Souder, voted against the obstruction charge. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against the second perjury charge, sending it to defeat, and eighty-one voted against the abuse of power charge.”

his comment is late because of the time difference that Hillary is working.

Public Schedule for February 25, 2012

Public Schedule
Washington, DC

February 25, 2012

SECRETARY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Secretary Clinton is on foreign travel to North Africa through February 26. In Tunisia, Secretary Clinton will attend the first “Friends of Syria” meeting as part of ongoing efforts to halt the violence and pursue a transition to democracy in Syria. Secretary Clinton will also meet with Prime Minister Jebali, President Marzouki, and members of civil society to discuss bilateral cooperation and Tunisia’s progress in its democratic transition. While in Tunisia, Secretary Clinton will deliver remarks and take questions from Tunisian youth and civil society on the pivotal role of young people in the Arab Awakening and in building vibrant economies and sustainable democracies around the world. The Secretary is accompanied by Assistant Secretary Feltman and Director Sullivan. In Tunisia, Secretary Clinton will be joined by Under Secretary Otero and Ambassador Fred Hof Please click here for more information.

“accusations that it was Gingrich (all by) himself who Impeached Clinton”

Of course it wasn’t “all by himself”. Impeachment requires a majority vote in the House, and cooperation of Starr etc. But those other impeachers ARE NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND GETTING SUPPORT FROM ALLEGED HILLARY SUPPORTERS.

“erroneous information to include; he’s never apologized to the Clintons”

If you think Gingrich apologized to either Clinton, pls quote the apology. (There’s none in the Wiki article.) Perhaps you are thinking of another Impeacher, who Bill says did apologize to him, admitting that they had been looking for an excuse to impeach him ever since he was elected.

The Third Way/Centrist style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the administration of President Bill Clinton.[17] With respect to U.S. presidents, the term “Third Way” was introduced by political scientist Stephen Skowronek, who wrote The Politics Presidents Make (1993, 1997;ISBN 0674689372)[18][19] “Third Way” presidents “undermine the opposition by borrowing policies from it in an effort to seize the middle and with it to achieve political dominance. Think of Nixon’s economic policies, which were a continuation of Johnson’s “Great Society”; Clinton’s welfare reform and support of capital punishment; and Obama’s pragmatic centrism, reflected in his embrace, albeit very recent, of entitlements reform.[20]

After Tony Blair came to power in the UK, Clinton, Blair and other leading Third Way adherents organized conferences to promote the Third Way philosophy in 1997 at Chequers in England.[21][22] The Third Way think tank and the Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics.[23]

“erroneous information to include; he’s never apologized to the Clintons”
_____________

How do you know if Gingrich didn’t apologize to the Clintons Privately and the Clintons didn’t think it was any of your business sharing that information with you or making it public?

So your vendetta is about as useful as a soiled diaper to those of us determined to BOOTING Obama OUT of the White House in November if Gingrich happens to be the nominee. And you can do your usual contrary thinking and Vote for Obama!

Admin
When Barack Obama weaseled his way into the Rezko House White House Hillary Clinton faced a dilemma. Hillary Clinton knew Obama was treacherous and she should not join the cabinet, but Hillary worried about abandoning America to the inexperienced treacherous boob at a time of peril.

——–
Wonderful contrast of Barry on his knees and Hillary, once again acting like the REAL President of the United States.

Hillary called herself a ‘modern Progressive’ in 2008. Your Wikipedia quote about ‘centrism’ during Bill Clinton’s administration does not support your claim that Hillary “recanted” her use of ‘Progressive’ after 2008. At best Wikipedia (a den of Bots) supports the idea, which no one has denied, that the Clintons can also be described as ‘Centrists’ (although Wikipedia gives an odd and somewhat derogatory definition of ‘Centrist’).

If you think Hillary ‘recanted’ her 2008 statement, you’d need a quote directly from Hillary clearly saying she no longer uses the word ‘Progressive’.

ShortTermer:
I do not confess to know about all religions, but is there a religion that will not allow forgiveness of ANY sin once a person repents?

=============

Tdo:
But to go along with you for a moment — you said “once a person repents.” Gingrich has NOT repented for what he did to Bill and Hillary. He has not even apologized for impeaching bill. He has not said that Bill was right in his policies during the 90s

———–

Mrs. Smith:
“erroneous information to include; he’s never apologized to the Clintons”
_____________

Mrs. Smith: How do you know if Gingrich didn’t apologize to the Clintons Privately

================

LOL! We’re supposed to ‘forgive’ Gingrich publicly on the grounds that he MIGHT have said something privately, that no one has any evidence of? When all Gingrich’s current statements are still bashing Bill and the Clintons’ policies.

The PBS show on Clinton’s presidency was on again tonight and I watched it for the first time. Hillary is lovely in all the glimpses of her.

Mrs. Smith, the contraceptive fairy will argue with a sign post; waste of time responding imho. She will argue with you even if you are agreeing with her….no one will ever convince her to stop living in the past and holding a grudge against those she thinks are reponsible for Bill’s actions.

part of that program was his speech where he said he had misled the country, congress, his family, and the American people. Americans, most anyway, are very forgiving if they believe you sincere in your repentance. Even those people supporting him could not phantom what caused him to a. risk everything and b. not come clean about it.

In that program Gingrich was featured several times; it was he and his group who forced Clinton in to accepting a balanced budget….Clinton influenced what happened to Medicare or was it Medicaid?

It was not the Independents that stayed home last election; it was the conservative Republicans and conservatives period. McCain, just like Romney now, can not and will not get the conservative vote….they will stay home….they will not compromise their principles.
********************************************************

…there is one very big difference this time around…and it is OBAMA!…

*****************************************************************

frankly, some can rationalize Newt’s character or ‘lack thereof’ all they want…the obvious remains that he will not win a general election…also it sounds like some who support him actually want his brand of republican activism…his so called “big bold ideas”…how soon some forget that this man is an opportunist who essentially used everyone in his life…starting with his first wife…right up to when his own congressional colleagues had enough of him and his ego…

…if you want to put your trust in that man that is your perogative…i find that very naive…i prefer his big bold ideas to be heard from the sidelines or in some conference…certainly not as the next President of the USA…

…if those that support him worry about independents staying home for Romney…surely you don’t think that independents or moderate repubs are going to actually go an vote for Newt…that is really being in denial…

Any one who believes that Romney will win over the conservatives is wrong; wrong just like the Establishment Republicans were wrong thinking that the conservatives would vote for McCain and not let ObaMAO get elected the first time. OBAMA WAS THERE LAST TIME AS WELL. Just look at where we are now. Independents likely will not stay home for Romney, the conservatives will. And Romney’s family history of mulitple wives is not going to help him; just wait until the Dimocrats bring that up in the general in the most disgusting manner possible.

“Do you want me to repost the link and quote/video of Hillary calling herself a ‘modern Progressive’ in 2008?”
____________

Do you mean the one that someone else using your login posted for you… the one I mentioned, after reading it and giving the date as July and you thanking me for it, not realizing it was supposedly you that posted the quote in the first place?

In that program Gingrich was featured several times; it was he and his group who forced Clinton in to accepting a balanced budget….

================

Oh, bullshit! In the first two years of Clinton’s first term, he and his Democrat majority passed a budget which the GOP was never able to overturn, which was responsible for the balanced budget — by raising taxes, and with NO Republican votes.

Obama was not president for four years last time around…and he has proven to be worse than many expected…O’s presidency will be a factor this time around…even for conservatives…

as for Romney’s family history of multiple wives…that was his great grandfather…the one that fled to mexico…Romney’s “family values” are impeccable and the his family’s visuals will compete with O’s family optics (btw…has anyone noticed that O is using his two daughters in his re-election advertising?)

Newt is a chameleon…and one that cannot be trusted at that…if you support him because you believe in him and his ideas that is contradictory to supporting the Clintons brand of moderate/left politics…

F. Whistle Blowers: (First Amendment): http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
Barack Obama said : “often, the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in Government is an existing Government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.” (Statement still on-line at Obama’s Change.gov website) “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government… I firmly believe what Justice Louis Brandeis once said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I know that restoring transparency is not only the surest way to achieve results, but also to earn back the trust in government without which we cannot deliver the changes the American people sent us here to make.”(White House, January 28, 2009)”
Barack Obama did the opposite: as president he is pursuing the most aggressive crackdown on whistleblowers in U.S. history. Before now, government officials were rarely indicted for disclosing information that is in the public interest. The Obama / Holder DOJ has, however, taken the strategy of not merely threatening whistleblowers with legal action as Bush did, but following through and prosecuting them. Obama has now indicted as many whistleblowers as all previous presidents combined.
G. Warrantless Wiretapping: (Fourth Amendment) http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
Barack Obama said : “I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. … No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people – not the President, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.” (Campaign statement, January 28, 2008)I Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” (Campaign statement, October 24, 2007)
Barack Obama did the opposite: After securing the Democratic nomination for president, Senator Obama not only voted against filibustering the FISA Amendments Act, but, along with Republicans, voted in favor of the bill itself, which granted unforeseen powers of surveillance to the president, and total immunity to telecommunications companies (see last quote above). [This move was defended by many Obama supporters who pointed out that the law does not provide immunity to authorities who implemented the program, back when it was “still” illegal. Upon assuming the presidency, however, Obama promised to “look forward, not backward,” and blocked any efforts to investigate the surveillance (or other) crimes committed during Bush’s tenure, or to bring lawsuits against the perpetrators. Electronic surveillance and data-mining on a massive and expanding scale continue to this day, while Obama has vowed to veto any bill that requires the president to even subject his surveillance activities to more congressional oversight – the lack of which enabled Bush to implement the NSA program secretly. In April 2009, The New York Times reported that the NSA under Obama has exceeded even the modest legal limits it was supposed to follow in its collection of Americans’ emails and phone calls. The Obama administration is trying to push for legislation making it easier to monitor BlackBerry devices, Skype, and Facebook. The proposed legislation aims to do away with the decentralized architecture of the Internet, so as to create the ability for the government to conduct surveillance of online communication.

I. Habeas Corpus: (Fifth/Sixth Amendments). http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
Barack Obama said: “as a Constitutional scholar with a degree from Harvard and as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review and as a parent, I can only imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even a chance—even one chance—to ask why they are being held and being able to prove their innocence . . . By giving suspects a chance—even one chance to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.” [(Senate, September 2006)

Barack Obama then did the opposite: Shortly after assuming office, Obama appealed a district court ruling that granted prisoners in Afghanistan the right to challenge the legality of their detention, adopting the legal argument straight from the Bush DOJ. In May 2010, Obama won the case in a DC Circuit Court of Appeals (see point 1.2 below). Standing in front of the original Constitution at the National Archives in May 2009, Obama introduced a staggering new expansion of executive power: In addition to using military tribunals (see point 1.3), the administration would now retain the right to indefinitely hold detainees deemed dangerous, even if they were known to be innocent of any crime, without charges, and without their day in either a court or a military tribunal. This was the first time in U.S. history that the executive branch asserted the right to imprison people indefinitely on suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. In December 2011, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, causing outrage among human rights and civil liberties organizations. The bill formally codifies the U.S. Government’s right to arrest anyone anywhere on suspicion of terrorism-related crimes, including U.S. citizens, and to imprison them indefinitely without trial. (snip) White House specifically demanded that provisions excluding U.S. citizens on U.S. soil from indefinite military detention be removed from the bill. In other words, the negotiated “modifications,” which Obama stated were necessary for him to sign the bill, include broader powers to ignore habeas corpus rights, not safeguards to protect them. Calling the decision a “historic tragedy,” Human Rights Watch concluded, “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
J. Assassination of American Citizens: (Fifth/Eighth Amendment): http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
Barack Obama said: “I also reject the view … that the president may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. … And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points: The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.” The Boston Globe, December 2007)

Barack Obama then did the opposite: Shortly after expanding his own presidential authority by asserting the right to decide on terrorism suspects’ guilt without any legal process, and to detain individuals on suspicion of possible future crimes (see point 1.3), Obama took the expansion of executive power one step further: In January 2010, the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, testified before Congress that the Obama administration is reserving the right to include Americans on the assassination list, and kill them anywhere abroad at any time, without legal oversight. This constitutes death penalty without due process, a much more radical power than merely imprisoning Americans. The number of Americans on the list is unknown, but includes at least four names, possibly dozens. Most targeted killings are conducted by the CIA with remote-controlled, unmanned drones, condemned by the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston.

Prices rise above $5 for a gallon of premium gas at a Shell station at Olympic Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue in Los Angeles, California February 21, 2012.

*********************************************************

…that’s in the heart of Los Angeles…if that continues and spreads across the country…a friend of mine is paying over $4 a gallon in West Palm Beach…if this continues as the election approaches O’s slight ‘seemingly rising’ polls will collapse…they are already falling again…

Mrs. Smith, how many posters have been run off from this worthwhile group? I had respectfully, or so I thought, asked for the contrarian fairy to just scroll over my posts as I have no interest in reading hers neither do I have an interest in her reading my posts, but even though she has professed that she does not read all the posts, she sure as the devil reads mine [and yours] even knowing that we agree on nothing……absolutely nothing. All that comes from her are carpetbombs.

btw…just for the record…the conservatives aren’t even supporting Newt…they have fled to Santorum…yes, he will probably pull off Georgia and maybe some states in the deep south…he is around 10-15% in all the other polls…where is his support?

Obama likes to apologize for others. He never apologizes for himself. This is a highly manipulative behavior to damn others while attempting to make himself look magnanimous and wise. He is neither. Any method that he can employ to belittle, hector, or dehumanize he will use. We have all talked about how narcissistic he is. He is passive aggressive also. This is a highly destructive behavior which has harmed our troops and officers. He is using this manipulative behavior daily in his campaign as is his wife. It needs to be pointed out when they do it. And I hope the military does not burn any more desecrated Korans but rather ships them home so they can be thrown into a cesspit.

Smokin post admin; written with fire in the belly. Thanks.
wbboei, significant contributions in comments. I’ve carefully read the first and will return to complete the others.

Regarding our Constitution, we may be having some pr luck this year because that Awesome Document turns 225,
and Philadelphia is celebrating!!!!!! ["Feel good" video at the link given]

Celebrate the 225th Anniversary of the Constitution
PHILADELPHIA, Pa.- February 21, 2012 (WPVI) — 225 years ago this summer, the Constitutional Convention met at Independence Hall. Thrashing through issues like the powers of small states versus large and what to do about slavery,Delegates came up with a document that defined our government. Many amendments later, it still does, and you’re invited to get to know it at the National Constitution Center. Any day between now and Constitution Day, September 17th, you may visit and sign it.
snip
If you can’t make it in person, you can go to the center’s website and “sign” online .http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8546801

Question: Citing Krauthammer’s opinion of the latest apology where Krauthammer states there are 56 Nations in the Islamic conference – is that the number our “Christian” POTUS had in mind several years ago when he mistakenly referred to the “57 states” in this United States ?????????????????????????????????

#################################################
Adding to the numbers of Muslims who never seem inclined to apologize, protests against NYPD have been ongoing for weeks. This is from AP, dated 2/24/2012:
…Officials in three states have traded accusations over who knew what about the secret 2007 NYPD operation. The NYPD monitored and catalogued Muslim neighborhoods throughout Newark, New Jersey’s largest city. Meanwhile, supporters of the Newark mosque plan to rally in support of its congregants Friday….http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0224/Newark-Muslims-hold-protest-rally-over-NYPD-spy-operation

I’m not suggesting they should apologize for this cause which actually I feel they should understand – I fault them for their sustained effort. Or perhaps as Charles Krauthammer suggested in the video, I fear the power they possess to sustain such a protest.

#####################################################

Mrs. Smith 3:11pm previous thread Newt said that on the robo-call?
—————————————————
No. During the call, he mentioned his campaign site, newt DOT org. If you go there, you will see “Stop Bowing, Start Drilling” right at the top of his home page…along with that infamous pic of Barry bowing to some Muslim. Sorry don’t know which country that was. Pretty funny. His butt pretty much faces the camera!

Was it Mrs. Smith and wbboei who told us that there is a fight going on between the establishment of both parties (Obama vs Bushs) for control of our future? I know wbboei tells us that we must prepare for the struggle ahead of us. I think we can’t even imagine the forces that will be arrayed against us.

If you fight for NO OTHER REASON, FIGHT because the battle will open the eyes of our fellow citizens. Either we will be proved wrong and Newt will be elected and fulfill his promises or we will loose an ever escalating, bitter battle where the forces against us will have to break cover and perhaps the American people stop swimming in the boiling water. That last sentence contradicts my first sentence, in the first sentence I am just stating “settled science”.

Mrs. Smith, how many posters have been run off from this worthwhile group?
______________

Quite a few that I know of- They’ve e-mailed me saying they will not return to Pink as long as Turndown is still posting on this board. They are sick and tired of being harassed and nit-picked to death with there is no intervention from mgmt anywhere in sight. The feeling is/was posting here was an enjoyable experience where they could bring information here and get good information here relating to current events. They feel their patience is at an end. They have been let down, going unheard, their pleas unaddressed, when they have been asking for relief for some time and none has been forthcoming.

wbboei said: admin’s e-mail is no longer responding to e-mail. So, I am of no help to anyone in getting resolution to this stressful situation.

Was it Mrs. Smith and wbboei who told us that there is a fight going on between the establishment of both parties (Obama vs Bushs) for control of our future?
______________

Yes, a Soros vs Bush/Neocons fight for control. The reason why Jeb’s name has suddenly appeared because Romney is growing weaker day by day and is not formidable enough as the Republican nominee as a challenger to Obama’s well equipped campaign.

(Gingrich is polling strongly in his home state of GA. If Romney loses Michigan, he might as well pack up and go home.)

Not only that- The GOP have split. You have the Establishment, the Tea Party and the Evangelicals. Sarah Palin is supporting Newt Gingrich. Who is slowly gaining public support because he is communicating a functional Plan on day one pulling America back from the death spiral Obama has planned for America. Third World status-

Betty: If you fight for NO OTHER REASON, FIGHT because the battle will open the eyes of our fellow citizens.
———————-
[my 2¢] or at minimum, allow you to feel that you did all you could do.
______________

Yes, hta- I don’t regret the things I’ve done, I regret the things I didn’t do..

When this forum was overun with OBots in 08′ many posters left. I see the same thing happening all over again because one, BO supporter has been left to do dirty work where many Hillary supporters see it and do not want to deal with it anymore…

The last piece for anyone who is interested. After this I need to batten down the hatches.

X. CONCLUSION

The American historian Charles Beard argued persuasively that the framers of the Constitution were motivated primarily by a desire to protect their own economic interests, and that the real goal of that document was, and is, to encourage finance and manufactures, protect property rights and protect property rights making them anterior to government and beyond the reach of popular majorities.

At the same time however, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, both of which were written by Thomas Jefferson offered a fundamentally different vision of the American political system, wherein the American People were sovereign, were accorded certain rights upon which the propertied classes who controlled government dare not tread, and the goal of government was the greatest happiness for the greatest number based on the views of Jeremy Bentham.

Those two visions have been at war with one another since the beginning. During the period of Manifest Destiny, the propertied classes could gorge themselves on the economic opportunities served up by an empty continent and cheap labor in abundant supply. And the working class could partake of free land, and imagine that in time they could become capitalists themselves. Thus a confrontation was deferred.

But with the closing of the frontier in 1890, they elites were forced to look for new sources of raw material and new markets beyond our shores for their excess production. This transition led to the creation of an empire protected by militarism and marching under the banner of making the world safe for democracy. The propertied classes believed that continuing economic growth was essential because, without that, decline, decay and social unrest were inevitable. They have a point.

The competing view did not die however. During periods of economic expansion it lay dormant so long as the spoils were spread equitably across society. Or it was pursued half heartedly. But in periods of economic decline it flourished. The original populist movement was a Republican Party construct. It sought to reform the brutal aspects of Gilded Age capitalism. Over time, it became the basis for the welfare state and modern liberalism championed by the Democratic Party.

The new populist movement referred to in this paper is a different animal. And it is phony as a three dollar bill. There is a scene in the Neil Simon movie California Suite which depicts what it is really all about. In it, actor Alan Alda meets his ex-wife Jane Fonda and a witty repartee ensues. He reminds her of the time she bought a $500 pair of slacks on Rodeo Drive so she could go out and raise $50 for Caesar Chavez and the poor itinerant farm workers. He points out the obvious which is that if she was true to her professed ideals then she would have foregone the slacks and given the $500 to the farm workers. The new progressive is an elitist in search of a populist mascot.

Now that is what Barack Obama is, and it is all that he is. He is everything that Chris Hedges accuses him of being—a brand offered up by the elites to make us feel good while they loot the country. And a very hollow brand at that. His rise to power during a period of economic upheaval is a tragedy for this country at so many levels.

For many black people he was the living symbol that they had finally achieved equality and the past was past. But beyond that what exactly has he done to solve their problems? Doesn’t matter. He was black and that is all that counts. Therefore, they will turn out again for him in record numbers in 2012.

What about the youth in this country? They have large college debts. They need jobs. Their unemployment rate is 16%. Doesn’t matter. He is young and hip. And he promises to protect jobs. That is all that counts. Therefore, they will be out again for him in record numbers in 2012.

And what about our dear friends at the American Civil Liberties Union. He is their man, right? Of course. He gives pretty speeches about how he is going to protect civil rights. Just words he asks. Well, in a word, yes. Just words. He does not do what he says. He does the opposite. Does not matter. He is a Harvard Law grad, and a guest lecturer on Constitutional Law. Therefore they will be out for him again in 2012.

He speaks of hope and change. But there will be no hope and no change for the American People until he is gone. And that is the bottom line.

I try not to see the squabbles.
I don’t recall when I joined Big Pink; perhaps I was not around here in ’08. As much as I despise everything Oh represents, it took awhile to accustom myself to admin’s frank talk. Now I absolutely understand and accept the frankness. lol

…Greg Wright, a certified fraud examiner … filed a complaint against Lugar in November. Wright met with tea partiers opposing Lugar late last year and they brought up Lugar’s residency. Until then, nobody had investigated the claims, keeping questions about his residency locked within a small confine of political insiders. But it is now front and center with a major hand from Democrats, who have formed a truly strange alliance with tea partiers on the issue. Democratic Super PAC American Bridge has been running ads calling Lugar an excellent senator for Virginia, where he’s lived since 1977. Indiana’s Democratic Party, meanwhile, has held press conferences and pushed stories as Democrats try to build the storyline….http://www.necn.com/02/26/12/Old-Lugar-issue-finds-new-legs-in-critic/landing_politics.html?&apID=3ed775141fd14cd9844fe56cefd840ae

The living in one state and representing another seems to be the rage. Remember the guy with the evil twinkle in his eye and the tongue spawned from the devil at the R&B meeting, Robert Wexler, who blasted away at Hillary and Ickes and by transfer at us? He claimed he lived in Florida, gave a Florida address on his credentials for office evidently. Come to find out he had provided the Florida address for his in laws, but actually lived up north. Needless to say he resigned after that happened but the msm gave an excuse for his resignation that was more suitable to him.

I do not confess to know about all religions, but is there a religion that will not allow forgiveness of ANY sin once a person repents? And if the Good Lord above forgives, who are we to judge? But should we set ourselves as judge, should we not judge all sins from everyone equally? Even our hero was a philanderer and did not represent himself well under oath….something that I can not phantom our girl doing. And yet, I love Big Dawg still and do sincerely believe that he has learned from the err of his ways.

=====================

But then what about the former Bots, jouralists and such, who publish articles in major media op-eds saying they were wrong to support Obama and wish they had supported Hillary; some even literally apologize to Hillary. They don’t meet with forgiveness and support here, and I haven’t seen you defending them.

You are subscribed to Public Schedule for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Public Schedule: Public Schedule for February 26, 2012
02/26/2012 10:53 AM EST

Public Schedule for February 26, 2012

Public Schedule
Washington, DC

February 26, 2012

SECRETARY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Secretary Clinton is on foreign travel in Rabat, Morocco and is accompanied by Under Secretary Otero, Assistant Secretary Feltman and Director Sullivan. Please click here for more information.

Also from Harndenblog:
Asked if the comment in Tunisia meant the political juices were still flowing, she responded: “I’ve tried to dampen them down. I’ve tried to have them taken out, in a blood transfusion, but occasionally they rear their heads.”

Betty
February 26th, 2012 at 9:06 am
Newt will win the presidential election, in a heart beat.

Mrs. Smith
February 26th, 2012 at 9:49 am

(Gingrich is polling strongly in his home state of GA. If Romney loses Michigan, he might as well pack up and go home.)

Not only that- The GOP have split. You have the Establishment, the Tea Party and the Evangelicals. Sarah Palin is supporting Newt Gingrich. Who is slowly gaining public support because he is communicating a functional Plan on day one pulling America back from the death spiral Obama has planned for America. Third World status-

************************************

you have got to be kidding…Newt has lost support…he often polls behind Ron Paul…Paul may end up aligning with Romney and bringing his supporters with him…

I guess you just don’t get that Newt is not well liked…even by his own party…he is at the end of the pack…if it were not for his sole casino contributor, Adelson, Newt would have already gone bye bye…

Newt’s only support is with ‘very’ conservative primary voters…that will NOT help in the general, in fact it will hurt him…sorry, imho, I don’t even see this discussion as helping our cause…Newt is a lost cause…

…flash…the majority of people do not want Newt and his “functional” plan…

Imagine if Ron Paul announced a national campaign called ‘Whites for Ron Paul’ – he’d be vilified as a racist. And yet Barack Obama has done the equivalent of precisely that with his launch of ‘African Americans for Obama’.

The program urges black Americans to volunteer their time by making calls, organizing events and going door to door in their neighborhoods encouraging other African Americans to vote for Obama.

Not only is Obama playing the race card in an attempt to pressure black Americans into voting for him, he is also violating the separation between church and state. In the video promo for the campaign, Obama urges black people to pressure churches into supporting his administration by getting his message out via “the faith community”. He also calls on voters to become “congregation captains”.

Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.

Karzai Responds To Obama’s Apology On Afghan TV: After Speaking With “Jihadi Leaders” We Demand U.S. Soldiers Be “Put On Trial And Punished”

CNSNews.com) — Three days after President Barack Obama dispatched his ambassador to Afghanistan to hand deliver a personal letter from the president of the United States to Afghan President Hamid Karzai apologizing because U.S. forces at Bagram Air Force Base had mistakenly burnt some Korans, Karzai has responded to the gesture in a statement broadcast live on Afghan television.

Karzai, according to a BBC translation of his remarks made Sunday, told the Afghan people he was speaking to them after discussing the matter with “jihadi leaders,” “prominent scholars,” and Afghan elected officials, and that he spoke for the “pure sentiments” of the “Afghan nation” and the “Islamic world,” when he said: “We call on the US government to bring the perpetrators of the act to justice and put them on trial and punish them.”

The two U.S. soldiers murdered by the Afghans were 23 and 25. One had a 7 month old daughter.(AP)

The bodies of Cpl. T.J. Conrad of Roanoke, Va. and Sgt. Joshua Born, 25, of Niceville, Fla., both assigned to the Army’s Fort Stewart in Georgia, were returned to the military mortuary at Dover Air Force Base on Saturday.

Conrad, the father of a 7-month-old baby, deployed to Afghanistan in January. He would have celebrated his 23rd birthday on March 6.

S
February 26th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
agree, gonzotx…it is beyond surreal to rationalize supporting NG, as a strategy that was discussed I can understand, but there are some true believers for NG…

================

Yes. Imo Admin does a great job of keeping out the real anti-Clinton extremists and crazies on either side, and if she is allowing some longtime Gingrich or Rightwing fans to come in, fine. The more viewpoints discussed the better.

And I guess some of them may have been ‘Clinton Republicans’, temporarily attracted from their party by the Clintons’ abilities etc.

But it still sounds odd … especially hearing the real Clinton supporters shouted down in a Hillary blog, and few real Clinton supporters daring to speak out for the Clintons’ causes.

There are 4 candidates left and at this point everyone can support whoever they prefer as long as they are NOT trashing the other candidates. And that, IMO, extends to NG as well.

As a matter of fact, I was impressed that it was only NG who came out forcefully and denounced BO’s apology to Karzai.

Both MR and RS followed suit, today, but NG jumped right on that issue and I respected that.

Let the primaries continue, let the process unfold, let’s see if a brokered convention happens or maybe even another couple of candidates emerge. And, in the meantime, I agree with WHI that all ammunition should be lobbed at the imposter-in-chief and not at those trying to dethrone him.

I think the key to Obama’s defeat is his CORRUPTION, because it’s something even the stupids can understand, and will deflate the high-brow rock star image he cultivates. Nobody likes a crook, not even other crooks. Focusing on his corruption will hurt him personally without coming across as “mean” or racist (you know they’ll play that card). We need the ghost of Lee Atwater to help us keep it simple, and drive that point home again and again so everyone in the country knows what Solyndra is, and what it says about Obama.

I agree that we should do all we can to remove O from office, but it is important to focus on WHY, not just Anybody But Obama. It is important to see which team Obama is actually playing for so we can fight the real enemy and not pick a pinch hitter from within the GOP. In my opinion Obama’s team is the corporatists, what I call the Corporate State. They’ve been called the Progressives here, same thing. Also, ‘globalists’ and ‘fascists’.

The real battle lines in this crucial election are corporate vs. populist, not Dem vs. Rep, and certainly not liberal vs. conservative. Libs and cons are not polar opposites and mortal enemies – that is a myth shoved down our throats by the corporate media for the purpose of dividing the country (because divided we fall). America is a fat, money-stiffed piñata that has to be ripped apart to get to the goodies inside. Because, to quote from the classic film Network, “there is only one religion to these people: dollars, pounds, euros, etc.” The real “opposite”of my liberalism – and conservatism – is a totalitarian state like China; it is interesting that that is the direction we’ve been heading towards for a dozen years in spite of the best efforts of informed activists on both sides of the aisle. This is possible because both sides ignore the corruption within their own party – anything goes, from the Patriot Act to the Healthcare Scam, as long as it’s our own corrupt bastards doing it.

Unlike capitalism, corporatism seeks to advance the elite, eliminate the middle class and consign the rest of us to a disenfranchised working class. The elite are: government employees, union leaders, the aristocracy, and of course the corporate management/boards of directors, which includes their mouthpiece, the media. They are trying to create the impression that THEY are the real America and the rest of us are on the fringe/”bitter clingers”. Have you noticed how anyone who challenges corporate power gets slammed by the corporate owned media? Michelle Bachmann is a great example: after she criticized big pharma’s toxic vaccines, she was marginalized out of the race, because there are countless billions to be made just off the HPV vaccine. Who was she to challenge their power? She had to go. The corporatists look after their team.

I do not hate corporations, but I hate their soulless abuse of power and their purchase of the government. Henry Ford is a hero of mine, for his innovation and the profound influence on our world. He deserved all the millions he made and then some. But if Ford had decided it was easier to make money by bribing governments, that’s the point he would have become a corporatist (aka fascist), not a capitalist. And that’s the point we’ve obviously reached: power for sale. I love capitalism for the freedoms it has provided – we can go anywhere our effort and skills take us. But that freedom is being destroyed because our freedoms are cumbersome and costly to the corporate bottom line, and our individual creativity and ingenuity are unwanted competition for the Corporate State.

That is why Obama must go, and that is why ABO may be a carrot on a stick. This election is turning out to look a lot like ’04: an unpopular president challenged by a bunch of losers (who discouraged the anti-Bush/anti-war coalition). The conservative obsession on getting a “true conservative” is also destined for disappointment, like the anti-war movement. All four are fatally flawed for a general election race, and that could be by design, to enable the Ostablishment to really stick it to us inObama’s 2nd term. Who will be the next John Kerry? I’m hoping the next president has yet to enter the race.

I think it maybe time for an Independent, and I hope Palin is it (assuming Hillary stays out of it). Although she has been a Republican her whole career, she has stated that she is “an Independent who decided to work within the two-party system.” She challenged corporate power in Alaska, which is why the Corporate State turned its media on her like the hounds of hell. If she got 80% of the Independents, 20% of the Republicans, and just 10% of the Democrats she would win a plurality. She’s not perfect – nobody is – but I trust her to keep America ruled by its people, not a board of directors bent on global domination.

I’m really disappointed that the Left got distracted by Occupy Wall Street, which kept us from organizing around a primary challenger to O, but that is why the regime supported “poopfest” in the first place, as admin has pointed out.

I agree all 4 candidates are flawed and in answer to whether that was by design – well, whose design? MSM? Get rid of all the strong candidates – Palin, Trump, Perry (OK – I still have a soft spot for him), discourage others, decimate those remaining then get them to turn on one another?

Is the next president still waiting in the wings?

I don’t know. But until that happens I’m working with the deck we’ve been dealt and I say ABO voters should lay off the few candidates still remaining.

It only helps BO.

Also, the globalists are playing a huge role in the dismantling of America, IMHO.

valleyboy said:
February 26th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
“Have you noticed how anyone who challenges corporate power gets slammed by the corporate owned media?”

Yes, regardless of their party or ideology. The Clintons, Gore, Palin, and probably Goldwater.

“That is why Obama must go, and that is why ABO may be a carrot on a stick. This election is turning out to look a lot like ’04: an unpopular president challenged by a bunch of losers (who discouraged the anti-Bush/anti-war coalition). The conservative obsession on getting a “true conservative” is also destined for disappointment, like the anti-war movement.
[....]
I think it maybe time for an Independent, and I hope Palin is it (assuming Hillary stays out of it). Although she has been a Republican her whole career, she has stated that she is “an Independent who decided to work within the two-party system.” She challenged corporate power in Alaska, which is why the Corporate State turned its media on her like the hounds of hell. If she got 80% of the Independents, 20% of the Republicans, and just 10% of the Democrats she would win a plurality. She’s not perfect – nobody is – but I trust her to keep America ruled by its people, not a board of directors bent on global domination.”

Yes! Palin did a good job cleaning up Alaska, and it would be great to see her clean up DC.

“I’m really disappointed that the Left got distracted by Occupy Wall Street, which kept us from organizing around a primary challenger to O”

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country. To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up.” – Rick Santorum, speaking today on ABC’s This Week.

Santorum has a point about proning an ‘absolute’ separation of church and state: such a separation is indeed impossible. Not only the faithful but their leaders as well (preachers, priests, rabbis, imams) have a right to free speech and the vote, and they thereby influence the activities of the state and nothing can be done about it. However, once a law is on the books, no particular religious group can make an exception for themselves on religious grounds. Think human sacrifice, polygamy, contraception, abortion, etc.

Separation of church and state had special meaning in the 18th century when the Constitution was written. Most European monarchies were deeply invested by emissaries of the Holy See. The monarchs made the laws, but those laws had to fit in with the Pope’s world view and general principles, or the Pope would excommunicate the guilty monarch; and the monarchs were crowned by the Pope or approved by him. The monarchs’ principal advisors were clerics. When the Estates General were called, they came in three lots: the Church, the Nobility, and the People. Of the three, the Church was the most powerful because it was cohesive (beholden to the Pope) and had strong sway over the People, whereas the Nobility were a divisive lot.

Then there was the case of England, where the Monarch was (still is) the head of the Church of England. It is an established church.

The Founding Fathers didn’t want either of these scenarios, so they came up with ‘separation of church and state’, with the caveats mentioned above.

Not one political figure in this present race can compare with the respect and trust that Hillary receives where ever she goes in this world .Here at home the “Good ole Boys” continue the assault on her in fear of this great world leader.

AMBASSADOR KAPLAN: Now, as I was saying about Secretary Clinton – (laughter) – she’s a remarkable woman, you know. Twelve years as the first lady of the State of Arkansas, eight years as the first lady of America, eight years as a senator from our most powerful state, the State of New York, and now the Secretary of State. I only regret, because I know so many of you, that there isn’t time for her to speak to each one of you, because I know her engaging quality and I know how it is when she talks to people and she focuses on what they are saying. If that isn’t possible to do, but it’s wonderful to have her on this day and to tell you she’s one of the great Americans and she’s really one of the great people of the world. So once again, I introduce you to the Secretary of State. (Applause.)

Here’s an interesting piece by a confirmed democrat that spells out a realistic mis-en-scene for the coming election.

Mitt Romney Is a Canny Politician Doing What’s Necessary to Survive the Primaries

The candidate is no fool. He knows the far right controls the GOP primaries, and he’ll say and do whatever it takes to get to the nomination.
by Lee Siegel | February 26, 2012 4:45 AM EST
Here’s an outrageous proposition. The Republican primary race is not chaos, or a clown show, or a travesty of the political process. It is going exactly as it was meant to go.

Mitt Romney addresses the Detroit Economic Club on Feb. 24,
Here’s another one. Mitt Romney is not a stumbler, or a bumbler, or a fool. He is a shrewd man painstakingly making his successful way through a complicated situation. Just because I don’t like him doesn’t mean that it makes sense for me to underestimate him.

Why is anyone surprised at the instability of the Republican race? The Republican Party is now mostly a movement. It’s a party only in its upper echelons. You have a relatively small group of Republicans who, thanks to the amplifications of cable and the Internet, and thanks to the liberal media’s pornographic obsession with the hard right, have been wielding a disproportionate influence over the GOP. You have primaries in which traditionally only the hardcore faithful vote—and sometimes, in an open primary, Democrats out to make some trouble. It is hardly a shocker that the most fanatical candidate—first Gingrich, now Santorum—is going to come out on top for a while. There is nothing wild or astonishing about it.
In this fractured situation, it’s only natural that Romney should compartmentalize himself and try simultaneously to appease the fanatical hardcore primary voters while signaling to the swing voters and independents that he is, despite all the signaling, fundamentally sane. Instead of accepting this, however, the media makes him out to be a tin-eared idiot. That would be to perilously misread him.
Was it a mistake for Romney to say that the very poor are taken care of by the safety net, and that he would repair the net if it were torn? On the one hand he was playing to the base, made up mostly of the besieged middle class, by assuring them that they would be the focus of his attention, not the poor. On the other hand, he was playing to moderates and independents by displaying some basic human empathy. But the media reacted to what was clearly a calculated piece of rhetoric as if Romney had a learning disability.
Or consider Romney’s now-notorious declaration that he was “severely conservative.” What a nitwit, everyone cried. He made it sound like a disease! Well, he did, and he didn’t. That Romney thinks of conservatism as a disease would never occur to most conservatives. But that Romney thinks of the new radical right that has alienated so much of the country as some sort of illness might well occur to moderates and independents, which would be to Romney’s advantage.
Make no mistake about Romney’s contempt for the Tea Party and the evangelicals. Not only are they trying to derail him, but their ancestors destroyed his father’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968. He loathes them.
By performing his aloofness from and contempt for the radical right, even as he fakes solidarity with it, Romney is doing exactly what he needs to do.
It’s no wonder that Romney doesn’t seem to “feel” the Tea Party’s message, even as he intones it for the sake of expedience. Romney intends for the moderates and independents to feel his emotional detachment from the radical right. When Romney gets criticized for speaking to the Tea Partiers as someone “who mechanically moves his lips in synch with the rest but doesn’t seem to feel the emotional rhythm of the message,” the critic is sleepwalking past the point. The more moderates and independents there are who understand that Romney doesn’t share the emotional rhythms of the Tea Party, the better will be his chances in a general election.
At the same time as Romney is mocked for faking radical-right sentiments, he is also derided for not being radically right enough. He is not one of the “authentic tribunes of the right” like Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, we are told, by writers who contradict themselves a few sentences later and acknowledge that the narrow conservatism of the Tea Party and the evangelicals—today’s authentic right—lacks a wide appeal even among conservatives. In fact, Goldwater the Republican nominee and Reagan the Republican president benefited from a special circumstance that made their extremism palatable to the moderate voter. It was called the Cold War, and its absence makes this right-wing insurgency less substantial and more fragile than any previous right-wing insurgency. Perhaps nostalgia for the old stabilizing anathema is why today’s radical right talks about Obama as if he were the very spirit of Soviet communism.
By performing his aloofness from and contempt for the radical right, even as he fakes solidarity with it, Romney is doing exactly what he needs to do. He is keeping the radical right close to him for the general election by seeming to bow to its power, even as he is signaling to everyone else that he knows how miserably inadequate the support of the radical right will be in the general election.
So let’s all calm down and stop getting so excited about a deadlocked convention, and a dark-horse nominee introduced at the last minute, and an imploded Republican opposition. Beyond Super Tuesday lie delegate-rich states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California that are not top heavy with Tea Partiers and evangelicals and that will almost certainly enable Romney to arrive at the convention with a strong hand. And beyond that are the party elites, who were content to use the radical right-wingers but who never liked them, and who tremble at the thought of Candidate Santorum. Finally there are the Tea Partiers and evangelicals who, though hostile to Romney at present, would rather vote for a golden retriever than give Obama another four years in the White House.
What seems like a circus now is serious business, so let us look beyond the circus instead of exaggerating it. The election will come down to Romney and Obama, and it will be decided on the economy and on race. On the economy, if it keeps improving, what Obama has to do is be direct with the American people and forcefully demonstrate to them why, without government, they would not have safety, security, or a viable old age. They either buy that or they don’t. On race, well, all you can do is cross your fingers and hold your breath.

In 2011, government report obtained by nonprofit organization claims 1,911 animals killed. Only 34 adopted in same time span

By Daily Mail Reporter

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed more than 95 per cent of animals in its care last year at a Virginia shelter, a shocking new report states.

The report, released by non-profit consumer group, claims that PETA – which is known for its outspoken stance on animal rights – were responsible for the deaths of nearly 2,000 adoptable animals last year alone.

The records also show that the animal-rights organization has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia since 1998.

BTW, Stinky’s approval ratings are slipping back, only +1.2%. And that includes a helping hand from two apparent outliers, CBS/NYT having him at +7 (older poll from Feb. 8-13), and Politico at +8 (surprised??, from Feb 19-22).

Personally, despite all the “green shoots” talk being perpetuated (the economy, the employment situation), I stronly believe these story lines and his polling numbers are being talked up. The state mouthpiece news organizations have to work extra hard to prop up Dear Leader.

I am perplexed and disappointed with the statements Hillary made re the apology and
Him getting re-elected.

———
You are always perplexed and disappointed about something, usually it’s poll numbers. How’s about trusting Hillary as the person you she is and that she is doing what she has to do instead of falling on her sword.

When Hillary says anything good about Barry I don’t listen to it, and if I did, I wouldn’t take it to heart. We know what he did to her, we know she does not admire or even respect his lazy ass…but she loves America and will do what ever she can to help us.

Playing off the movie “The Artist,” which won Best Picture at The Oscars Sunday, Raising Red Action Fund produced a parody trailer for “The Con Artist,” a movie starring President Barack Obama and nominated for “Worst Picture.”

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says he’s declaring war on the left-wing, George Soros-financed website Media Matters for America over its depiction of Israel. And Dershowitz says he’s going to make it into a re-election issue for President Obama.

The information comes amid recent news, according to WND, that White House staffers held regular meetings and even a weekly conference call with Media Matters on campaign strategy.

Dershowitz is particularly angry with Media Matters’ coverage of Israel, especially rhetoric from Media Matters Action Network senior fellow M.J. Rosenberg, who is known for his extreme anti-Israel views.

The site uses the phrase “Israel Firster,” implying those who support the Jewish state put Israel’s needs before those of the U.S.

“Not only will [the Media Matters controversy] be an election matter, I will personally make it an election matter,” said Dershowitz.

“I will speak to every Jewish group that invites me, and I think it’s fair to say I speak to more Jewish groups than probably any other person in the world. I spoke to over a million Jews over the years,” Dershowitz said. “You know, just last Thursday spoke to 1200, just in the next weeks alone I’ll be speaking and in the past weeks to thousands of American Jews. And believe me, I will not let them ignore this issue.”

“I don’t know whether President Obama has any idea that Media Matters has turned the corner against Israel in this way,” Dershowitz said. “I can tell you this: he will know very shortly because I am beginning a serious campaign on this issue and I will not let it drop until and unless Rosenberg is fired from Media Matters, or Media Matters changes its policy or the White House disassociates itself from Media Matters.”

Leanora February 27th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
——————
Sarah has been doing this for a long time within her snail mail solicitations. It is startling to see & hard to get used to.
Whether it brings positive results, I couldn’t say.
But BO is copying Sarah in that whether he knows it or not.

Jeswezey siad:
“Not only the faithful but their leaders as well (preachers, priests, rabbis, imams) have a right to free speech and the vote, and they thereby influence the activities of the state and nothing can be done about it.”

[[ At that level, you might as well say that hairdressers or Star Trek fans influence the state. But between that level and the old custorm of Establishment of Religion, there's a big practical level of money. Some favored churches are not taxed, are supported by tax-deductible donations, and receive grants from the government. They use that money to run their own media and spread their own message of how they want their members to influlence the government. ]]

“However, once a law is on the books, no particular religious group can make an exception for themselves on religious grounds.”

[[ Well, I think some exceptions are reasonable, like what members do with each other. But not to force their peculiar beliefs on non-members. ]]

WOW! Leanora, I thought this letter should be available for all to see so I copied.

Drew –

As you may have noticed, we’ve asked you for a donation a few times now.

But according to our records, you haven’t yet made an online donation to this campaign at this email address. (If our records are wrong, I apologize and thank you!)

I’m not writing to ask you for money again. I’m actually writing to ask your opinion about why you haven’t given, and what you think would inspire you or other Obama supporters like you to decide to take the leap and donate.

We have two quick questions for you. Can you take a minute to answer them?

There’s a good reason we’re asking for your feedback: The kind of organization we all decided to be a part of only works if people like you pitch in to build it.

It’s also the reason no other candidate has been able to match our level of grassroots support. This isn’t the easiest way to run a campaign — but we know it’s the right way.

Congressman Alan West outraged by apology to American soldier murderers.

“I want to extend my sincere condolences to the families of the Army Colonel and Major who were killed by Afghanistan security forces over this “burning Koran” episode.

If we had resolute leadership in the White House, we would have explained that these Islamic terrorist enemy combatants detained at the Parwan facility used the Koran to write jihadist messages to pass to others.

In doing so, they violated their own cultural practice and defiled the Koran and turned the Koran into contraband.

The Islamic cultural practice and Parwan detention facility procedures support burning the “contraband.”

Instead here we go again, offering apology after apology and promising to “hold those responsible accountable.” Responsible for what?

The Pennsylvania man assaulted in October by a Muslim who was offended by his Halloween parade “Zombie Muhammad” costume said he has received hundreds of death threats after a judge dismissed his attacker’s criminal charges.

Ernest Perce told The Daily Caller that Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim man, “grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck.”
Elbayomy reportedly admitted to a police officer, Sgt. Bryan Curtis, that he attempted to rip Perce’s fake beard off, remove his “Muhammed of Islam” sign and choke him.

Perce said he believes Elbayomy thought it was illegal in the United States to insult Muhammad, as it is in countries whose governments are based on Sharia law.

Last week Judge Mark Martin sided with Perce’s attacker, saying in open court that Perce would be put to death in Muslim societies for showing disrespect to Muhammad. The judge dismissed the charges against Elbayomy.

“You’re way outside your boundaries of First Amendment rights,” the judge said during the trial.
“Martin’s decision effectively says that Muslims do not have to learn to accept blasphemy against their religion without violence.” Pence told TheDC. “Yet when you are a citizen of the USA, you accept our Constitution. Free speech is our foundation.”

Perce says he has received 471 threats against his life in the short time since his attacker was acquitted.

“People have said that they would kill me, rip my eyes out, run me over, shoot me and then laugh at me, since I have blasphemed Muhammad,” he told TheDC. “They say I will be found out and hung in front of my family.”

During his trial, Talaag Elbayomy claimed he never made physical contact with Perce, creating what Judge Martin called a he-said/she-said situation. Sgt. Curtis testified that Perce’s version of events was correct, but the judge ignored his testimony.

Judge Martin also refused to allow a video taken the night of the attack to be entered as evidence.

Perce told TheDC that he believes Martin did not allow the video to be shown in his courtroom because he “would be offended.”

In fact, Martin told Perce during the proceedings that “I’m a Muslim” and “I find it offensive.”

The Pennsylvania man assaulted in October by a Muslim who was offended by his Halloween parade “Zombie Muhammad” costume said he has received hundreds of death threats after a judge dismissed his attacker’s criminal charges.

Ernest Perce told The Daily Caller that Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim man, “grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck.”
Elbayomy reportedly admitted to a police officer, Sgt. Bryan Curtis, that he attempted to rip Perce’s fake beard off, remove his “Muhammed of Islam” sign and choke him.

Perce said he believes Elbayomy thought it was illegal in the United States to insult Muhammad, as it is in countries whose governments are based on Sharia law.

Last week Judge Mark Martin sided with Perce’s attacker, saying in open court that Perce would be put to death in Muslim societies for showing disrespect to Muhammad. The judge dismissed the charges against Elbayomy.

“You’re way outside your boundaries of First Amendment rights,” the judge said during the trial.
“Martin’s decision effectively says that Muslims do not have to learn to accept blasphemy against their religion without violence.” Pence told TheDC. “Yet when you are a citizen of the USA, you accept our Constitution. Free speech is our foundation.”

Perce says he has received 471 threats against his life in the short time since his attacker was acquitted.

“People have said that they would kill me, rip my eyes out, run me over, shoot me and then laugh at me, since I have blasphemed Muhammad,” he told TheDC. “They say I will be found out and hung in front of my family.”

During his trial, Talaag Elbayomy claimed he never made physical contact with Perce, creating what Judge Martin called a he-said/she-said situation. Sgt. Curtis testified that Perce’s version of events was correct, but the judge ignored his testimony.

Judge Martin also refused to allow a video taken the night of the attack to be entered as evidence.

Perce told TheDC that he believes Martin did not allow the video to be shown in his courtroom because he “would be offended.”

In fact, Martin told Perce during the proceedings that “I’m a Muslim” and “I find it offensive.”

———-
Not that they would actually care about what you are thinking, they just want to know if you still use this email address…

…otherwise, you could say, you want to know why I don’t donate to your campaign nor will I vote for you…..here is a website that expresses how lots of Hillary supports feel about you since 2007….and no, we haven’t forgotten what you did to Hillary Clinton

The Pennsylvania man assaulted in October by a Muslim who was offended by his Halloween parade “Zombie Muhammad” costume said he has received hundreds of death threats after a judge dismissed his attacker’s criminal charges.

Ernest Perce told The Daily Caller that Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim man, “grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck.”
Elbayomy reportedly admitted to a police officer, Sgt. Bryan Curtis, that he attempted to rip Perce’s fake beard off, remove his “Muhammed of Islam” sign and choke him.

Perce said he believes Elbayomy thought it was illegal in the United States to insult Muhammad, as it is in countries whose governments are based on Sharia law.

Last week Judge Mark Martin sided with Perce’s attacker, saying in open court that Perce would be put to death in Muslim societies for showing disrespect to Muhammad. The judge dismissed the charges against Elbayomy.

“You’re way outside your boundaries of First Amendment rights,” the judge said during the trial.
“Martin’s decision effectively says that Muslims do not have to learn to accept blasphemy against their religion without violence.” Pence told TheDC. “Yet when you are a citizen of the USA, you accept our Constitution. Free speech is our foundation.”

Perce says he has received 471 threats against his life in the short time since his attacker was acquitted.

“People have said that they would kill me, rip my eyes out, run me over, shoot me and then laugh at me, since I have blasphemed Muhammad,” he told TheDC. “They say I will be found out and hung in front of my family.”

During his trial, Talaag Elbayomy claimed he never made physical contact with Perce, creating what Judge Martin called a he-said/she-said situation. Sgt. Curtis testified that Perce’s version of events was correct, but the judge ignored his testimony.

Judge Martin also refused to allow a video taken the night of the attack to be entered as evidence.

Perce told TheDC that he believes Martin did not allow the video to be shown in his courtroom because he “would be offended.”

In fact, Martin told Perce during the proceedings that “I’m a Muslim” and “I find it offensive.”

Pentagon officials will continue pressing in 2013 for significantly higher Tricare fees for military retirees, including older retirees covered by Tricare for Life, as well as higher drug co-pays for all Tricare beneficiaries.

The Defense Department’s proposed 2013 budget calls for annual enrollment fees for retirees in Tricare Prime to rise next year by 30 percent to 78 percent, from the current $460 or $520 for families to between $600 and $820, depending on military retirement income.

“Working-age retirees” — those younger than 65 — also would pay annual enrollment fees for Tricare Standard and Extra: $70 for an individual and $140 for a family. These would be the first enrollment fees for Standard and Extra in Tricare history.

Deductibles for Standard and Extra also would rise by $10 for individuals and $20 for families.

Medicare-eligible retirees also would contribute more to their care: The budget calls for annual Tricare for Life enrollment fees of $35 to $115 per individual, depending on retirement income. A retiree and a spouse covered under TFL would each have to pay the enrollment fee.

Tricare for Life beneficiaries currently pay no enrollment fees but are required to enroll in Medicare Part B, which carries premiums of $99.90 a month.

Military advocacy groups said they understand the budget constraints facing DoD but feel this proposal “passes the buck” to beneficiaries.

“We take issue with the Pentagon’s decision to raise fees for beneficiaries, relying on them to pay for the budget when it’s the department’s responsibility to increase efficiencies and cut their own costs,” said Kathy Beasley, health care committee co-chairwoman for the Military Coalition, an umbrella group of more than 30 national military associations.

The groups also are concerned about the Pentagon’s call to link fee hikes to retirement income and index future increases to the medical inflation rate, which tends to rise faster than overall inflation or the annual cost-of-living adjustment in military retired pay.

When lawmakers last year approved the first fee increases since Tricare was created in the mid-1990s, they limited future hikes to the retiree COLA. The most recent COLA increase was 3.6 percent; medical inflation typically rises by 6 percent or 7 percent a year.

“These new increases, coming on top of last year’s changes, are a classic ‘bait and switch’ that would raise beneficiary fees by as much as $1,500 a year or more,” said retired Vice Adm. Norb Ryan, president of the Military Officers Association of America.

Another proposed change would boost pharmacy co-pays on brand-name drugs, a move designed to encourage patients to buy generic versions or fill their prescriptions at military treatment facilities.

Under the plan:

• Co-pays at retail outlets would remain $5 for generics but would more than double next year to $26 for brand names, then go up $2 per year through 2017. Co-pays for drugs not listed on Tricare’s formulary would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

• Generic drugs obtained by mail would remain free for a 90-day supply, but brand names would increase next year to $26 from $9 and rise by $2 a year through 2017. Nonformulary drugs would cost $51, up from $25.

Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale said the proposals reflect DoD’s commitment to military families. He added that the tiered approach directs those with greater means to pay more for their health care.

Tricare “will still be quite generous compared to the private-sector plans, Aetna or Blue Cross Blue Shield. We still think it’s generous, as it should be, but we feel we need to move in that direction,” Hale said.

The enrollment fee hikes would not apply to survivors of military members who died on active duty or medically retired troops.

WASHINGTON – The health care overhaul that President Obama intended to be the signature achievement of his first term instead has become a significant problem in his bid for a second one, uniting Republicans in opposition and eroding his standing among independents.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of the nation’s dozen top battleground states, a clear majority of registered voters call the bill’s passage “a bad thing” and support its repeal if a Republican wins the White House in November. Two years after he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act— and as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments about its constitutionality next month — the president has failed to convince most Americans that it was the right thing to do.

“Mandating that you have to buy the insurance rubs me the wrong way altogether,” says Fred Harrison, 62, a horse trainer from York County, Pa., who was among those surveyed and supports repeal even though he likes some provisions of the law. “It should be my own choice.”

“It seems like it forces you to take health care (coverage), and you don’t really have a say in the matter,” says Beth Leffew, 26, a college student from Cincinnati. She says the president “didn’t really listen to people” when they objected to the proposed bill. “It seems like he just shoved it right through Congress.”

Though the law has avid supporters, especially in the president’s Democratic base, the net effect among middle-of-the-road voters is negative for him. What’s more, the issue unites the GOP when the party is fractured among competing presidential contenders.

In the poll, Obama lags the two leading Republican rivals in the 12 states likely to determine the outcome of a close race in November:

Romney also has a health care problem: Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in the battleground states, 27% say they are less likely to support him because he signed a Massachusetts law that required residents to have coverage. Just 7% say it makes them more likely to back him.

“If they used Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care program as a guideline for the Obamacare thing, what’s the difference?” says Robert Hargrove, 37, of Sanford, N.C., rejecting Romney’s explanation of differences between the state and federal laws. Hargrove, a truck driver for a propane company, scoffs: “It’s just a bigger version. They put it on steroids.”

The swing states poll of 1,137 registered voters was taken Feb. 14-21. In addition, a national survey of 881 registered voters was taken Feb. 20-21. The margin of error for each is +/-4 percentage points.

The battleground states surveyed include Michigan — where Tuesday’s primary has become a critical showdown between Romney and Santorum — as well as Ohio and Virginia, which vote next week on Super Tuesday. The other swing states are Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Health care ranks near the top of a list of concerns for advocates and critics of the law. Nationwide, it trails only the economy and the deficit as being the most critical issues facing the nation, rating a bit higher than unemployment and terrorism.

Lynn West, 58, a retired state education official from Boscawen, N.H., is exasperated that a law she says has been “fabulous” for her family continues to draw so much heat. Under its provisions, her 24-year-old son has been able to stay on his father’s health insurance plan after graduating from the University of New Hampshire two years ago. Her 77-year-old mother, who lives in nearby Concord, has seen her prescription costs decline.

“If you say the word ‘Obamacare’ — Republicans have made that a dirty word,” says West, who was among those surveyed.

“If I had to fault President Obama or the people that help him put out his message, I think they need to be simpler. A lot of times it’s the catch phrases that catch fire, like when he said, ‘Yes we can’ ” in the 2008 campaign. “That’s why the term ‘Obamacare’ has worked — a simple phrase, and they’ve been able to put a negative connotation to it. In fact, they ought to be saying, ‘Obamacare! Let’s rejoice!’ ”

Bragging and basketballs

Thursday night at the mansion of Dallas Mavericks star Vince Carter in Orlando, Obama bragged about the law to a crowd of about 70 campaign contributors who had paid $30,000 each to attend.

“We were able to pass a health care bill that is already providing 2.5 million young people insurance who didn’t have it before, and by the time it’s fully implemented, will give 30 million people health insurance,” the president told the audience gathered at Carter’s indoor basketball court.

Although touting the Affordable Care Act is part of Obama’s standard pitch at political events such as that one, at larger presidential events, he is more likely to be focused on proposals to foster jobs or promote education. In the State of the Union address in January, he referred to the health care law in only two sentences, almost in passing.

The Republicans seeking the presidential nomination hammer the law at every opening — at times targeting not only Obama but also Romney.

“Romneycare was the model for Obamacare and the government takeover of health care,” Santorum declared at last Wednesday’s debate in Mesa, Ariz. “It would be a difficult task for someone who had the model for Obamacare, which is the biggest issue in this race of government in control of your lives, to be the nominee of our party.”

Romney replied that the Massachusetts plan differed in fundamental ways from the federal one. Then he tried to turn Santorum’s charge back on him.

“The reason we have Obamacare is because …Arlen Specter, the pro-choice senator of Pennsylvania that you supported and endorsed in a race over Pat Toomey— he voted for Obamacare. If you had not supported him, if we had said ‘no’ to Arlen Specter, we would not have Obamacare. So don’t look at me. Take a look in the mirror.”

Opposition to the federal law is nearly uniform among Republican voters. In the battleground states, eight in 10 say passage of the law was “a bad thing.” Nearly six in 10 want it repealed. Nine in 10 say the law’s provision requiring Americans to have health insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional — the centerpiece of a challenge before the Supreme Court.

The issue is whether Congress can force people to buy health insurance or pay a fine, a mandate that the law’s architects say is critical for the goal of expanding coverage and one that has divided judges on federal appeals courts. Arguments before the high court are scheduled to begin March 26, three days after the second anniversary of the law’s signing.

Voters in swing states stand overwhelmingly on one side of the debate: Three of four voters, including a majority of Democrats and of liberals, say the law is unconstitutional.

That reaction is almost instinctual, says Stuart Altman, a professor of national health policy at Brandeis University who has joined two briefs supporting the law. “People say, ‘The government should not mandate that I have to do anything.’ ”

He faults the Obama team for not responding effectively enough to what he calls a “torrent” of opposition and misinformation.

“You have this drumbeat of negative comments and almost no positive,” he says. “You’re relying on the president to do the selling, and he’s moved on to other things. The congressional people on the Democratic side are not supporting it. They’re either being very quiet or running away from it themselves because they’re afraid of getting tarnished.”

“That debate will be had,” says Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager. When the public is engaged in the general election, “there will be an intensive effort to ensure that families understand how they’re already benefiting from the law and what would be taken away from them if Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum has their way. The American people do not want to go back to the days of insurance companies discriminating against you if you have a pre-existing condition or dropping your coverage if you get sick.”

That will be a hard sale to make to Hargrove, the North Carolina truck driver. He acknowledges there are provisions in the law he calls “good and needed.” His 4-year-old son, Matthew, was born with a hole in his heart, requiring expensive surgery. Hargrove notes that the law’s bar on insurers refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions could protect kids such as his.

“But the way it was done, passed before it was read and all this other stuff, that’s underhanded,” he says. “You’ve got to have it or pay a penalty? That’s not the way the country was set up.”

Wariness about the future

Gail Wilensky, a top health care policymaker for President George W. Bush and critic of the law, says Americans remain wary of the long-term impact of its provisions, which don’t go fully into effect until 2014. At this point, she says, “they are not seeing much in the way of positives, and they are concerned about the negatives it might have.”

Eleven percent of voters in battleground states say the law has helped their families; 15% say it has hurt. Looking ahead, they predict by 42%-20% that the law will make things worse rather than better for their families.

A pocket of support: those under 30, a critical age group for Obama in 2008. They are inclined to call the law’s enactment “a good thing.” Even among them, the share of supporters falls just short of 50%. The older the age group, the more opposition emerges.

Opposition to the law is eroding Obama’s support among the middle-of-the-road voters both nominees will court this fall. Among independents, 35% say the law makes them less likely to support Obama, more than double the 16% who say it makes them more likely.

The intensity of feeling among potential swing voters also favors opponents. Among independents who lean to the GOP, 54% say they are much less likely to support Obama as a result. Among independents who lean to the Democrats, 18% say they are much more likely to support him.

Jason Carr, 40, a federal public defender in Las Vegas who describes himself as a moderate, credits the Obama administration with addressing a problem people had been talking about for decades. “You may not like what they did, but they did something,” he said in a follow-up interview after being polled. He is likely to vote for Obama in November but would consider Romney if he was the Republican nominee.

Vivian Robertson, 65, a retired nurse from Bangor, Wis., hasn’t decided whom to support in the state’s Republican primary on April 3, but she knows she won’t vote for the author of Obamacare in November.

“I think it’s terrible,” she says of the law. “It’s going to take our medical system, and it’s going to go right down the drain.”

Basil99:
“But until that happens I’m working with the deck we’ve been dealt and I say ABO voters should lay off the few candidates still remaining.”

I didn’t criticize any of them by name, but since you asked…

“the globalists are playing a huge role in the dismantling of America, IMHO.”

This is the ‘WHY’, and I see one of the Rep candidates (Romney) as a globalist/corporatist (control of healthcare and global warming snake oil are two of the globalists goals). Still I’d probably vote for him over O so the Dem party could be rid of him, and get back to its once benevolent ways. So I guess I’ll be ABO in November. But until then I don’t see a problem vetting/criticising the un-Fab Four. Yes, definitely a concerted effort to keep better candidates out; not just Palin, but also Jan Brewer and Alan West would have been great choices.

Of course I’d vote for Hill in a second; maybe O will screw up so publicly the media can’t cover for him, and she’ll be drafted in the spring.

I just saw that article. What a disgrace. Again, check his complete contempt for the troops, same as his total contempt for cops. Where is that money going?

I know from some of the veterans groups I have covered that there are many vets coming back from overseas who are homeless, especially women with children. It is a disgrace.

That added to the POS’s continued apologies to supposed Afghan allies who blew away 4 Americans in the past few days and wounded 7 more is enough to make one wonder why he continues to play with fire.

Is he deliberately provoking a military mutiny against him so he can bring in the big guns and seize control of the country? This is so over-the-top, so blatant, such a slap-in-the-face to soldiers. How long before someone snaps? Is that the plan? And if someone does, will they be treated like Nidal Hassan?

Islamist parties won more than 80 percent of seats in Egypt’s upper house of parliament, the country’s election board announced Sunday.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party took 58 percent of the seats in contention, while the harder-line Salafist Al-Nour party came in second with a quarter of all seats. The nationalist Wafd party came in third with just 7 percent of the vote.

Gotta love NG’s way with words. Pulls no punches in Afghan assessment.

‘You know, you are going to have to figure out how to live your own miserable life… because you clearly don’t want to learn from me how to be unmiserable.”

“We are not going to fix Afghanistan. It is not possible,” he told a large group of Republicans at an afternoon luncheon here. “These are people who have spent several thousand years hating foreigners. And what we have done by staying is become the new foreigners.

“This is a real problem. And there are some problems where you have to say, ‘You know, you are going to have to figure out how to live your own miserable life… because you clearly don’t want to learn from me how to be unmiserable. And that is what you are going to see happen.”

From news and comments here, Muslims rising worldwide. In addition to ongoing Muslim protests against NYPD, an alarming # of Latinos also in NYC began protesting their lack of representation (want another House member via redistricting). Now Obie stirring up his brothers via support appeal through church. Newt’s spunk could put all this down in a hurry. I would pay big to see Obama/Gingrich debate.

Appealing news IMO: Joe the Plumber seeking to oust Dennis Kucinich [via email]
…This is a David vs. Goliath battle, and I urgently need to know that you stand with me. Will you help me take down Goliath by following this link right now to make the most generous contribution you can afford to my campaign? I wanted to let you know that I am honored to have received the endorsement of Herman Cain. I have signed on to Herman’s 999 plan because I believe the IRS needs to be abolished NOW. For that to happen though, I have to retire Dennis Kucinich first. Kucinich votes in lock-step with Barack Obama. The only time he opposes Obama is when he thinks Obama isn’t being liberal enough! Think about that for a second. He is a radical, liberal extremist, and he needs to be retired. I am going to Washington to stand up to Barack Obama, just like I did when he came to Ohio four years ago, but I need you to help me get there.
Can I count on you today?
For America,
“Joe the Pumber”
Samuel Wurzelbacher
########################
Yesterday’s story of Douglas Kennedy trying to take newborn son outside hospital quashed. It would remind too many of what the Kennedy family really exemplifies.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/24/robert-f-kennedys-son-charged-over-maternity-ward-clash-with-nursesrobert-f/
#####################
The Con Artist video. good idea.

Muslims want international law to make it a crime to insult you-know-who.

A senior fellow for a Madrid-based think tank is alerting freedom-loving people about a caliphate-planning conference being held by Muslims soon, a move he said was given a boost of support by the Obama administration recently when it allowed a three-day “Istanbul Process” conference in Washington.

That event, writes Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for European Politics at Madrid’s Grupo de Estudio, “gave the [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.”

The coming event, Caliphate Conference 2012, is being organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Kern describes as a “pan-Islamic extremist group that seeks to establish a global Islamic state, or caliphate, ruled by Islamic Shariah law.”

The 57-member OIC has been proposing a special international law that would make it criminal to speak ill of Muhammad or his followers for years, but it never was successful under its earlier plans that were portrayed as a ban on the “defamation of religions.” ******************************************************
He said Muslim nations would use it as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians for statements as simple as their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Muslims consider an affront.

Worse would be the “chilling” effect on language that the U.N. plan would create worldwide, he said.

“This would be a huge blessing to those who would silence dissidents in their countries, Islamic regimes,” he said. “This stands as a monument to the gullibility of the masses in the United States and other places who don’t see this for what it is
***************************************************************
In a report published by the Stonegate Institute, Kern said the “explicit aim” of the Istanbul Process is to make it a crime to criticize Islam.

But then it proposed Resolution 16/18, a plan for countries to “combat” things like “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The idea was adopted in the U.N. General Assembly just a few weeks ago and Kern’s analysis notes that it would be largely ineffectual as long as the West doesn’t jump behind it.

That is why it was a “diplomatic coup,” according to Kern, when Obama held the three-day conference in Washington, and committed to the key principal Muslims have been seeking for years: holding people responsible when “free speech” … “results in sectarian clashes.”
************************************************
In Western civilization, the standard for responsibility would be to hold those accountable who do violence, not those who make statements that those who do violence blame for their actions.

The U.N. strategy, proposed by Pakistan “on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,” again creates an open door to blame someone for making a statement about Islam to which Muslims would react violently, by raising concerns about “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

The mega-leaks website, WikiLeaks, has partnered with the hackers cooperative Anonymous, to publish internal emails of the American strategic intelligence company Stratfor. In one of the hacked emails, Stratfor officials discuss information obtained from one of their sources who reports that Israeli commandos, in cooperation with Kurdish fighters, have destroyed Iranian nuclear installations.

WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, will hold a press conference today in London where he plans to reveal new details from the Stratfor emails, including details on the company’s dealings with the American government and major corporations, and its network of paid sources.

In a WikiLeaks press release last night, the group said that it had obtained over five million emails generated by the Stratfor headquarters in Texas, from 2004 until the end of 2011. Though the organization does not specify the source of the emails, it has already been published that Stratfor was a target of the Anonymous hackers.

According to the emails, among Stratfor’s clients are American government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Marine Corps, the Dow Chemical company, for whom Stratfor is alleged to have kept tabs on activists fighting the company for compensation over the Indian Bhopal chemical plant disaster in 1984, and defense giants Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.

According to the WikiLeaks release, Stratfor also “monitored” activists supporting the blight of the 1984 Bhopal chemical disaster on behalf of the US chemical giant Dow Chemical.

In one of the emails from November 2011, Startfor officials discuss the explosion at an Iranian missile base near Tehran and quote a source who “was asked what he thought of reports that the Israelis were preparing a military offensive against Iran. Response: I think this is a diversion. The Israelis already destroyed all the Iranian nuclear infrastructure on the ground weeks ago.”

One company analyst responded dismissively to the possibility of an Israeli attack having already taken place, asking: “How and when did the Israelis destroy the infra on the ground?”

Some of the Stratfor analysts expressed the opinion that Israel had sent commandos into Iran, perhaps with the assistance of Kurdish fighters or Iranian Jews who had immigrated to Israel, to carry out these operations.

I am sick to death of Muslim appeasement. It’s getting to the point I would almost support a deportation of all Muslims from non-Muslim countries. Let them fight their wars with one another and keep us out of it.

And Shadowfax, I think it was you who brought up the fact that the U.S. should never have been in the ME to begin with.

Agreed. From the beginning pf the WMD War I would stand in my living room and scream at the TV whenever Bush or Cheney appeared. If anyone would have told me there would ever be a president I hated more than Bush I would have told them they were nuts.

Well, they would have been prophetic. BO is a million times worse than Bush. Let’s get the heck out of Afghanistan.

Are military healthcare cuts a first step toward unionization of the troops as suggested by WHI?

Here’s what Ulsterman says:

Months ago, a longtime Wall Street Insider indicated there was a push within the Obama administration for unionization of the American military. Has that move now been revealed?

Can you imagine attempting to unionize our American military? And for such a consideration to be made by an administration…it is appalling how dangerous the mindset of the Obama people has become. Almost as appalling as how many of us didn’t see it all coming our way.

… As I did say – the administration wants to unionize the American military. All of it. They apparently, if what this gentleman said is to be believed,…they wish to see the soldiers “justly represented”. That was the term that was repeated to me by more than one source. It had…the conversation had originated as one about unionizing Wall Street workers and then the information about the military – the actual plan for unionizing the military came out. -WALL STREET INSIDER: President Obama’s Plan to Unionize the American Military
______________________
Today we see a troubling report of plans by the Obama administration to force acting and retired military service personnel and their families to pay higher insurance costs associated with the Obama healthcare plan – a plan that would protect current rates for unionized civilian defense workers.

Is this a case of the Obama White House attempting to push the American military into wanting to be unionized so as to be protected from such seemingly randam and harsh increases to their cost of living – the kind of protection the unions would be quite happy to promise them? Why else would President Barack Obama make such a seemingly foolish and potentially damaging political move as this?

Excerpt from the Washington Free Beacon report:

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.
…Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels. LINK
_________________
Why would a Commander in Chief during an election year push for potential increases of over 300% in military health care costs? Surely there is an alternative motive at play here – and our Wall Street Insider might have been exactly right when they issued their warning that the Obama administration was looking at ways of unionizing the American military.

I don’t think the Dems can pull off an Operation Chaos here in MI tomorrow. Those diehard obots would have to walk into a public place and request a Republican ballot. I doubt many of them have the guts to do that. Also, the ballots are not secret. The GOP will know that they voted and they’ll know for whom they voted.

BTW, I will be voting for Uncommitted on the Democratic ballot and I encourage my fellow Hillary-supporting Michiganders to do likewise. There is a space for write-ins, but I’ve been told that those ballots will not be counted.

Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]

In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.

While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.

In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.

January 28, 2009

NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.

Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.

In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.

For example, she shut down her political action committee.

Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."

But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."

"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."

Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."

Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."